I lUUSTKATED 
ART  HAKD-BOOKS 


SPANISH  AND 
FRENCH  PAINTERS 


1 GERARD  W.  SMITH. 


x%mm 


1 / A \m  1 y/i 

^ HiR  "W 

M W ii  0 

ml  i ^!e: 

o mJk 

<? 


ILLUSTRATED  LLAND-BOOLLS  OF  ART 
EDUCATLON, 

EDITED  BY  EDWARD  J.  FOYNTER,  R.A., 

and 

PROFESSOR  ROGER  SMITH,  F.R.I.B.A. 


PAINTING 

SPANISH  AND  FRENCH 

BY  GERARD  W.  SMITH 

EXETER  COLLEGE,  OXON. 





ILLUSTRATED  HAND-BOOKS  OF  ART  HISTORY 
OF  ALL  AGES  AND  COUNTRIES. 


EDITED  BY 

E.  J.  POYNTER,  R.A.,  AND  Prof.  ROGER  SMITH,  F.R.I.B.A. 

Each  in  crown  8vo,  cloth  extra;  per  volume;  5s. 


ARCHITECTURE:  CLASSIC  AND  EARLY  CHRISTIAN.  By 

Professor  T.  Roger  Smith  and  John  Slater,  B.A.  Comprising  the  Egyptian,  Assyrian, 
Greek,  Roman,  Byzantine,  and  Early  Christian.  Illustrated  with  200  Engravings,  including 
the  Parthenon,  and  Erechtheum  at  Athens  ; Colosseum,  Baths  of  Diocletian  at  Rome,  Saint 
Sophia  at  Constantinople;  the  Sakhra  Mosque  at  Jerusalem,  &c. 

ARCHITECTURE:  GOTHIC  AND  RENAISSANCE.  By  Professor 

T.  Roger  Smith  and  Edward  J.  Poynter.  R.A.  Showing  the  Progress  of  Gothic  Archi- 
tecture in  England,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  and  Spain,  and  of  Renaissance  Architecture 
in  the  same  Countries.  Illustrated  w,th  100  Engravings,  including  many  of  the  principal 
Cathedrals,  Churches,  Palaces,  and  Domestic  Buildings  on  the  Continent. 

SCULPTURE  : EGYPTIAN,  ASSYRIAN,  GREEK,  AND  ROMAN. 

By  George  Bedford,  F.  R.C.S.  With  160  Illustrations  of  the  most  celebrated  Statues 
and  Bas-Reliefs  of  Greece  and  Rome,  a Map  of  Ancient  Greece,  and  a Chronological  List  of 
Ancient  Sculptors  and  their  Works. 

SCULPTURE:  GOTHIC,  RENAISSANCE  AND  MODERN.  By 

Leader  Scott.  Illustrated  with  numerous  Engravings  of  Works  by  Ghiberti,  Donatello, 
Della  Robbia,  Michelangelo,  Cellini,  and  other  celebrated  Sculptors  of  the  Renaissance.  And 
with  Examples  of  Canova,  Thorv/aldsen,  Flaxman,  Chantrey,  Gibson,  and  other  Sculptors  of 
the  i8th  and  19th  centuries. 

PAINTING  : CLASSIC  AND  ITALIAN.  By  Edward  J.  Poynter,  R.  A., 

and  Percy  R.  Head,  B.A.  Including  Painting  in  Egypt,  Greece,  Rome,  and  Pompeii  ; the 
Renaissance  in  Italy;  Schools  of  Florence,  Siena,  Rome,  Padua,  Venice,  Perugia,  Ferrara, 
Parma,  Naples,  and  Bologna.  Illustrated  with  80  Engravings  of  many  of  the  finest  Pictures 
of  Italy. 

PAINTING  : SPANISH  AND  FRENCH.  By  Gerard  Smith,  Exeter 

Coll.,  Oxon.  Including  the  Lives  of  Ribera,  Zurbaran,  Velazquez,  and  Murillo  ; Poussin, 
Claude  Lorrain,  Le  Sueur,  Watteau,  Chardin,  Greuze,,  David,  and  Prud’hon ; Ingres,  Vernet, 
Delaroche,  and  Delacroix ; Corot,  Diaz,  Rousseau,  and  Millet ; Courbet,  Regnault,  Troyon, 
and  many  other  celebrated  artists.  With  about  80  Illustrations. 

PAINTING : GERMAN,  FLEMISH,  AND  DUTCH.  By  H.  J.  Wilmot 

Buxto.n',  M.A.,  and  Edward  J.  Poynter,  R.A.  Including  an  account  of  the  Works  of 
Albrecht  Diirer,  Cranach,  and  Holbein  ; Van  Eyck,  Van  der  Weyden,  and  Memhng;  Rubens, 
Snyders,  and  Van  Dyck ; Rembrandt,  Hals,  and  Jan  Steen  ; Wynants,  Ruisdael,  and 
Hobbema;  Cuyp,  Potter,  and  Berchem  ; Bakhiiisen,  Van  de  Velde,  Van  Huysum,  and 
other  celebrated  Painters.  Illustrated  with  100  Engravings. 

PAINTING : ENGLISH  AND  AMERICAN.  By  H.  J.  Wilmot 

Buxton,  M.A.,  and  S.  R.  Koehler.  Including  an  Account  of  the  Earliest  Paintings  known 
in  England;  the  works  of  Holbein,  Antonio  Moro,  Lucas  de  Heere,  Zuccaro,  and  Marc 
Garrard  ; the  Hilliards  and  Olivers;  Van  Dyck,  Lely,  and  Kneller;  Hogarth,  Reynold.s,  and 
Gainsborough  ; West,  Romney,  and  Lawrence  ; Constable,  Turner,  and  Wilkie  ; Maclise, 
Mulready,  and  Landseer,  and  other  celebrated  Painters.  And  a Chapter  on  Painting  in 
America.  With  80  Illustrations. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/paintingspanishf00smit_0 


ILL  USTRA  TED  HAND-BO  OKS  OF ' AR  T HIS  TOR  V. 


PAINTING 

SPANISH  AND  FRENCH 


BY  GERARD  W.  SMITH, 

EXETER  COLLEGE,  OXON. 


NEW  YORK 

SCRIBNER  AND  WELFORD 
LONDON 

SAMPSON  LOW,  MARSTON,  SEARLE,  & RIVINGTON,  Ltd. 

1890 


\All  rights  reserita.) 


niCHAKD  CLAY  AND  SONS,  LIMITED,  LONDON  AND  BUNGAY. 


NOTICE. 


HE  present  volume  completes  tlie  series  of  brief  histories 


of  Painting  in  the  Illustrated  Hand-books  of  Art 
Education.  They  include  an  account  of  Painting  in  Egypt, 
and  the  classic  works  of  Ancient  Greece ; the  Penaissance  and 
various  Schools  of  Art  in  Italy ; and  the  Schools  of  Spain  and 
France  : and  on  the  Teutonic  side,  the  early  Flemish,  the  early 
German,  Dutch,  and  later  Flemish  Schools  : a comprehensive 
view  of  Painting  in  England  from  the  fifteenth  century  to  the 
present  time,  and  a chapter  on  American  Art.  All  are  as  fully 
illustrated  as  the  size  of  the  volumes  will  admit. 

Should  a treatise  on  Modern  Artists  be  added  to  the  series, 
it  must  include  an  account  of  the  now  celebrated  painters  of 
Pussia,  Hungary,  Austria,  and  Scandinavia.  The  progress  of 
Art  throughout  Europe  and  the  United  States  of  America  is 
increasing  so  greatly  both  in  quantity  and  excellence,  that  the 
chronicler  of  Art  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century 
will  undoubtedly  have  to  provide  for  a book  of  many  pages. 

Crown  Buildings,  18S,  Fleet  Street. 


Aug.  1884. 


s 

J>  ■ .■ 


K 


£ 


J' 


I 


"N 


■ 


CONTENTS. 


PAINTING  IN  SPAIN, 

INTRODUCTION  ... 

Chapter  I. 

(bepore  a.d.  1500) 

EARLY  ART  IN  SPAIN 

Chapter  II. 

(a.d.  1501—1600) 

ITALIAN  AND  OTHER  PRECURSORS 
SCHOOL  OF  CASTILE 
SCHOOL  OF  ANDALUCIA 
SCHOOL  OF  VALENCIA 
SCHOOL  OF  ARAGON 

Chapter  III. 

(a.d.  1601—1682) 

The  Great  Epoch  of  Spanish  Painters. 

SCHOOL  OF  CASTILE 
SCHOOL  OF  ANDALUCIA 

SCHOOL  OF  VALENCIA  ...  ...  . 

SCHOOL  OF  ARAGON 


PAGE 

5 

11 

16 

P2 

30 

35 

37 

39 

50 

63 

67 


Vlll 


CONTENTS. 


Chapter  IV. 

(A.D.  1682—1800) 

Decadence  of  Spanish  Painting.  page 

SCHOOL  OF  CASTILE  ...  ...  ...  ...  68 

SCHOOL  OP  ANDALUCTA  ...  ...  ...  ...  72 

SCHOOL  OF  VALENCIA  ...  ...  ...  ...  74 

SCHOOL  OF  ARAGON  ...  ...  ...  ...  75 


PAINXmG  m POETUGAL. 

SCHOOL  OF  LISBON  ...  ...  ...  ...  81 

SCHOOL  OF  VISEU  ...  ...  ...  ...  85 


PAINTING  IN  PEANCE. 

INTRODUCTION  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  93 

Chapter  I. 

(A.D.  1400—1650) 

EARLY  FRENCH  ART  ...  ...  ...  ...  97 

Chapter  II. 

(A.D.  1650—1700) 

THE  AGE  OF  LOUIS  QUATORZE  ...  ...  ...  114 

Chapter  III. 

(A.D.  1701—1800) 

PAINTERS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY  ...  ...  157 

DAVID,  AND  THE  REFORM  OF  PAINTING  ...  ...  182 

(A.D.  1801—1880) 

PAINTERS  OF  THE  NINETEENTH  CENTURY  ...  ...  197 

MODERN  FRENCH  LANDSCAPE  PAINTERS  ...  ...  222 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


SPANISH  PAINTERS. 

1. 

Isabella,  Daughter  of  Philip  II. 

Coello. 

PAGE 

10 

2. 

Descent  from  the  Cross  

C-arducci. 

21 

3. 

Madonna  Dolorosa  

Morales. 

23 

4. 

St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  

Navarrete. 

26 

Tlie  Artist’s  Daughtei'  

Theotocoimli. 

28 

6. 

The  Nativity 

Vargas. 

31 

7. 

The  Last  Supper  

Cesjoedes. 

33 

8. 

The  Entombment  of  St.  Stephen  ... 

...  Juan  de  Juanes. 

36 

9. 

St.  Francis  receiving  the  Stigmata  ... 

Juan  Eizi. 

41 

10, 

11.  The  Count  Duke  of  Olivares 

Velazquez. 

43 

12. 

The  Calling  of  St.  Matthew 

...  Juan  de  Pare] a. 

48 

13. 

View  of  Saragossa  

Martinez. 

51 

14. 

St.  Basil  dictating  his  Doctrine 

Herrera  the  Elder. 

53 

15. 

St.  Elizabeth  of  Hungary  

Murillo. 

59 

16. 

The  Immaculate  Conception 

Murillo. 

61 

17. 

The  Deposition  from  the  Cross 

i?  ihera. 

65 

18. 

Charles  II.  of  Spain 

Carreho. 

70 

19. 

The  Death  of  the  Picador 

Goya. 

77 

20. 

St.  Peter  in  Pontifical  Robes 

Velasco. 

80 

21. 

Calvary 

Velasco. 

87 

R 


X 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


FRENCH  PAINTERS. 


22. 

Painting  on  Glass  

In  La  Saint  -Chapelle. 

PAGE 

99 

23. 

Miniature  Painting  

By  Bouquet. 

101 

24. 

Engraving  from  a Romance 

Ben^^  King  of  Anjou. 

103 

25. 

Elizabeth  of  Austria 

Clouet. 

105 

26, 

27.  The  Guard  Room 

Le  Nain. 

111 

28. 

Diogenes  throwing  away  his  Shell  ... 

Poussin. 

117 

29. 

The  Shepherds  of  Arcadia  

Poussin. 

121 

30, 

31.  St.  Paul  Preaching  at  Ephesus  ... 

Le  Sueur. 

122 

32, 

33.  The  Entry  of  Alexander  into  Babylon Le  Brun. 

124 

34. 

Catherine  Mignard  ...  

M ignard. 

129 

35. 

Sainte  Marguerite  

Dufresnoy. 

130 

36. 

Trajan  giving  Public  Audience 

Coypel. 

133 

37. 

Philippe  le  Hardi  and  the  Body  of  St. 

Louis  De  Boidogne. 

137 

38. 

Cardinal  Richelieu  

Champaigne. 

139 

39. 

Crossing  the  Ford  

Claude  Lorrain. 

141 

40. 

Ancient  Harbour  ; Sunset  

Claude  Lorrain. 

143 

41. 

Roses,  Poppies,  Jasmine,  Larkspur  . . . 

Monnoyer. 

147 

42. 

Reynard  Surprised  

J ean  Baptiste  Oudry. 

148 

43. 

Greyhound  protecting  Game 

Desportes. 

150 

44. 

The  Miraculous  Draught  of  Fishes  ... 

Jouvenet. 

153 

45. 

Perfect  Harmony  

Antoine  Watteau. 

158 

46. 

Fete  Champetre  

Pater. 

160 

47. 

Manhood  

Lancret. 

163 

48. 

The  First  Chapter  of  the  Order  “ Le  Saint  Esprit  ” De  Troy. 

165 

49. 

Carle  Vanloo’s  Studio  

Carle  Vanloo. 

169 

50. 

La  Fontaine 

Chardin. 

178 

51. 

The  Village  Bridegroom  

Greuze. 

181 

LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


52.  The  Sabine  Women  

David. 

53,  54.  The  Entry  of  Henri  IV.  into  Paris 

Gerard. 

55.  Phaedra  and  Hippolytus  

Guerin. 

56.  Cupid  Caressing  his  Victim 

...  Prud'hon. 

57.  Francis  I.  and  Charles  V.  at  St.  Denis 

Gros. 

58.  The  Raft  of  the  Medusa  

Ge'ricaidt. 

59.  Stratonice  

Ingres. 

60.  Christus  Consolator  

A ry  Scheffer. 

61.  Cinq  Mars  and  De  Thou  

Delaroche. 

62.  Adoration  of  the  Magi  

Fland,rin. 

63,  64.  Eventide  

Gleyre. 

65.  Halt  of  Harvesters  

Robert. 

66.  The  Pleasure-Boat  

Isabey. 

67.  ^Madame  Le  Bran  

By  Herself. 

68.  The  Post  through  the  Desert 

Horace  Vernet. 

69.  A Turkish  School 

Decamps. 

70.  Sunset  

Theodore  Rousseau. 

71.  Dance  of  Nymphs  

Corot. 

72.  Woodland  Scene  

Diaz. 

73.  Sunrise,  Oxen  going  to  Labour 

Troyon. 

74.  Arab  Chiefs  

...  Fromentin. 

7-5,  76.  General  Prim  

Regnault. 

xi 

PAGE 

185 

188 

191 

193 

196 

198 

201 

203 

206 

208 

209 

210 

213 

,215 

217 

221 

224 

227 

229 

231 

■233 

234 


1 


PAINTING  IN  SPAIN. 

INTEODUCTION. 

The  Art  of  Painting  in  Spain  is  inseparably  bound  up  with 
her  national  history ; and  in  treating  of  this  Art  we 
must  study  it  with  a constant  reference  to  those  circumstances 
which  made  the  Spaniards  a peculiar  people  among  the  nations 
of  Europe.  The  Inquisition,  which  gave  a kind  of  unity  to  the 
thought  it  crushed,  and  the  fanaticism  of  a religion  which,  in 
its  fierce  struggle  against  an  opposing  faith,  had  come  to  be 
almost  identical  with  patriotism — these  were  the  sombre  influ- 
ences beneath  which  Spain  rose  to  a greatness  that  bore  in  itself 
the  seeds  of  decay. 

This  prevailing  character  of  gloom  is  faithfully  reflected  in  her 
Schools  of  Painting,  the  only  branch  of  Art  in  which  she  attained 
the  highest  excellence.  In  other  countries  Art  had  received  its 
first  impulse  from  the  Church,  but  new  influences  had  in  time 
sprung  up  to  modify  or  transform  the  primitive  ideal.  In  Spain 
alone  did  the  Church  triumphantly  continue  to  direct  artistic 
energy,  to  the  utter  exclusion  of  all  extraneous  influences. 


6 


SPANISH  ART. 


Flemish  and  Italian  Masters  might  settle  in  Spain,  and  enrich 
with  their  skill  the  land  of  their  adoption;  Spanish  scholars 
might  find  their  way  to  Eonie,  and  bring  hack  thence  new  ideas, 
and  improved  methods  of  work  ; but  Spanish  Painting,  although 
entirely  a plant  of  extraneous  growth,  while  assimilating  to 
itself  this  culture  from  without,  never  permanently  assumed  a 
foreign  form.  The  semi-paganism  of  Italian  Art  found  no  place 
in  the  Churches  and  Palaces  of  Spain.  It  was  transformed  there 
into  a severe  asceticism,  which  ignored  antiquity,  and  inexorably 
excluded  earthly  ideals.  An  artist  could  at  best  only  aspire  to 
be  a teacher  of  religious  truth ; if  he  turned  aside  from  simple 
reality,  his  cramped  imagination  generally  exercised  its  powers 
in  bodying  forth  the  darkest  aspects  of  a creed  that  was  at  once 
fanatically  cruel  and  intensely  realistic.  The  office  of  Inspector 
of  Sacred  Pictures,  founded  by  the  Inquisition,  was  no  formal 
censorship.  It  exercised  a minute  control  over  the  brush  of  the 
artist,  exacting  from  him  a strict  decorum  in  his  treatment  of 
sacred  subjects,  and  laying  down  for  him  express  directions  as 
to  the  dress  of  sacred  personages.  FTudity  was  especially  to  be 
avoided.  Even  the  Virgin’s  feet  were  not  carelessly  to  be  ex- 
posed. Again,  it  was  a disputed  point  whether  the  Saviour 
should  be  represented  as  nailed  to  the  cross  by  three  nails  or  by 
four.  If  he  infringed  any  of  these  rules,  the  artist  might  expect 
to  see  the  obnoxious  feature  actually  painted  out.  Sometimes 
even  a punishment  was  imposed  by  way  of  penance.  This  rigid 
discipline  found,  on  the  whole,  a ready  response  from  those  on 
whom  it  was  imposed.  Vargas  and  Joanes,  the  founders  respect- 
ively of  two  great  schools,  were  as  eminent  for  piety  as  for 
artistic  power.  Many  painters  were  themselves  monks,  or 
brought  up  in  the  cloister.  All,  at  least,  had  felt  the  influence 


INTRODUCTIOX. 


of  an  imposing  religion  from  their  earliest  youth.  When  to  this 
it  is  added  that  the  Church  was  a munificent  patron,  it  will  he 
understood  how  ready  artists  were  to  expend  their  zeal  in  her 
service. 

The  Cathedral  of  Toledo,  begun  in  1226,  the  cradle  of  Spanisli 
Art,  was  for  four  hundred  years  the  noble  home  of  artists.  The 
Cathedral  of  Seville,  built  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  century, 
fostered  the  genius  of  Andalucia.  The  Escurial,  at  once  a Palace 
and  a Monastery,  was  the  work  of  one  who  favoured  monks  along 
with  painters,  and  was  a fanatic  before  he  was  a king.  If  the 
Court  also  was  not  slow  in  lending  its  countenance  to  Art,  it 
scarcely  offered  a freer  field  for  the  display  of  talent.  The  moral 
laxity  of  the  prince  was  not  permitted  to  extend  to  the  canvas 
of  his  painters.  Here,  too,  the  overshadowing  power  of  the 
Inquisition  reigned  supreme. 

Eeligion,  therefore,  as  understood  and  practised  daily  in  Catho- 
lic Spain,  must  be  looked  on  as  the  basis  underlying  the  whole 
structure  of  Spanish  Art ; now  appearing  in  all  its  solemnity,  as 
in  Campaha’s  Descent  from  the  Cross,  now  in  its  sternness  and 
horror,  as  in  the  St.  Stephen  of  Joanes,  now  with  a picturesque 
realism,  as  in  the  haggard  Carthusians  of  Zurbaran,  the  subtle 
Jesuits  of  Eoelas,  or  the  mendicant  monk  whom  Murillo  loved  to 
paint.  An  Art  thus  restricted  could  not  fail  to  display  a striking 
peculiarity  alike  in  its  excellences  and  its  defects. 

Three  great  Schools  of  Painting  arose  in  Spain — those  of 
Castile,  Andalucia,  and  Valencia.  The  first-named  of  these, 
which  was  also  the  earliest,  took  its  rise  in  Toledo,  in  the  first 
half  of  the  fifteenth  century,  and  having  also  centres  at  Badajos 
and  Valladolid,  found  its  final  home  in  Madrid. 


8 


SPANISH  ART. 


The  great  School  of  Andalucia  had  its  centres  at  Cordova, 
Granada,  and  above  all  at  Seville,  its  glorious  Art  metropolis. 
It  sprang  up  about  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century,  about 
the  same  time  as  that  of  Valencia.  To  these  larger  groups  may 
be  added  the  lesser  School  of  Aragon,  with  Saragossa  as  its 
centre,  which,  as  early  as  the  fourteenth  century,  produced  a few 
good  artists,  and  maintained  its  ground  with  more  or  less  success 
till  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

The  distinctive  features  belonging  to  these  Schools,  apart  from 
the  general  character  above  indicated,  were  chiefly  such  as  arose 
from  the  nature  of  the  localities  in  which  each  flourished.  The 
Castilian  painters  inclined  to  a dark  and  sober  style  of  colouring, 
tempered,  however,  through  the  influence  of  Titian,  by  something 
of  Venetian  warmth.  The  deeper  skies  of  the  South  naturally 
induced  in  the  artists  of  Andalucia  and  Valencia  a liking  for 
more  brilliant  and  mellower  tones,  and  a fondness  for  imitating 
the  more  picturesque  life  which  surrounded  them.  Tew  Masters 
in  any  of  the  Schools  attempted  or  succeeded  in  landscape,  but 
all  the  greatest  Masters  excelled  in  portraiture,  a branch  of  Art  in 
which  Spain  takes  a prominent  place.  “ In  point  of  age,  Spanish 
painting  comes  next  to  that  of  Italy  and  Germany ; in  importance 
it  is  second  only  to  that  of  Italy.”  * Beginning  in  the  fifteenth 
century,  it  presents  no  individuality,  but  even  in  its  earliest 
growth  derives  its  strength  entirely  from  Flemish  or  Italian 
sources.  With  the  opening  of  the  sixteenth  century  the  Italian 
influence  predominates,  and,  growing  stronger  and  stronger, 
moulds  the  works  of  the  distinguished  group  of  artists  who,  in 
the  reign  of  Philip  II.,  rose  to  excellence  in  their  respective  schools. 
It  was  not  until  late  in  the  seventeenth  century  that  Velazquez 
Stirling  : ‘ Annals  of  the  Artists  of  Spain.’ 


INTRODUCTION. 


9 


and  Murillo,  untrammelled  by  their  previous  study  of  foreign 
models,  held  the  mirror  up  to  Spanish  nature,  and  reproduced  on 
their  canvases  those  splendid  and  faithful  transcripts  of  it  which, 
at  the  same  time,  embodied  the  highest  excellence  of  their  Art. 
The  culmination,  however,  of  Spanish  Art  was  as  short-lived  as  it 
was  glorious.  Those  great  Masters  left  none  to  carry  on  their  work, 
and  the  few  worthy  names  that  come  after  them  only  serve  to 
make  the  general  decay  more  apparent.  Faithful  to  its  earliest 
traditions,  Spanish  Art,  even  in  its  decline,  clung  to  foreign 
models,  and  it  was  left  for  France,  at  the  close  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  to  lead  it  into  a depth  of  degradation  from  which  it  is 
only  now  partially  beginning  to  recover. 

***  The  names  and  dates  of  the  Artists  are  given  as  in  the  Catalogue 
of  the  Mxjseo  del  Prado  de  Madrid,  by  D.  Pedro  de  Madrazo— 1878. 


Isabella,  Daughter  of  Philip  II,  By  Aloxzo  Sanchez  Coello. 

In  the  Madrid  Gallery.  \_Sce  yage  25. 


CHAPTER  I. 

EARLY  ART  IN  SPAIN. 

(Before  a.d.  1500.) 

All  traces  of  Art  in  Spain  to  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century, 
and  for  some  time  beyond,  are  few  and  scanty,  and  our 
information  regarding  them  is  correspondingly  defective.  The 
name  of  Vigila  has  come  down  to  us  as  an  illuminator  of  manu- 
scripts in  the  tenth  century,  and  in  the  Library  of  the  Cathedral 
of  Seville  is  a Bible  which  was  transcribed  for  Alonso  the  Wise 
in  the  thirteenth  century  by  Pedro  de  Pampluna.  In  1291-2 
Rodrigo  Esteban  is  known  (by  the  mere  record  of  his  name)  to 
have  been  painter  to  King  Sancho  lY. , and  a little  earlier  than 
this  time  certain  accounts  of  works  at  Westminster  show 
another  Spanish  painter,  Petrus  de  Hispania,  to  have  been 
employed  in  England  by  Henry  III. 

On  the  ceiling  of  one  of  the  courts  of  the  Alhambra  at  Granada 
is  a very  curious  series  of  pictures,  painted  about  14G0,  as  to 
which  some  doubt  exists  whether  they  were  painted  by  a Moorish 
or  a Christian  artist.  The  subject  of  one  of  the  pictures — Ten 
bearded  Moors  seated  in  Council — gives  to  the  Hall  its  name  of 
“ Sala  de  Justicia;”  the  other  pictures  represent  chivalrous  oi 


12 


SPANISH  ART. 


amorous  subjects,  from  a Moorish  point  of  view.  Probably 
they  were  the  work  of  a Christian  renegade.* 

As  we  reach  the  fourteenth  century,  it  is  interesting  to  note 
how,  on  the  very  threshold,  as  it  were,  of  Spanish  Art,  traces  of 
contact  with  Italy  and  Flanders  begin  to  appear.  The  contact 
is  at  first  but  accidental  and  imperfect,  and  arises  apparently 
out  of  the  wandering  propensities  common  to  artists  of  all 
nationalities  in  the  middle  ages.  Gherardo  Starnina,  a 
Florentine  (1354 — 1413),  was  the  first  Italian  who  appeared  in 
Spain.  Induced  through  a quarrel  to  leave  his  native  city,  he 
worked  much  for  the  King  of  Spain,  whither  he  was  followed 
a little  later  by  Dello  (1404  ; d.  aft.  1466),  another  Florentine. 
Both  these  artists  achieved  distinction  at  the  Spanish  Court,  and 
returned  rich  to  Italy.  Equally  noteworthy  is  the  Flemish 
influence  which  touches  Spain  at  this  early  date.  The  great 
Master,  Jan  van  Eyck  (ab.  1386 — 1440),  had  himself  visited 
Portugal  in  1429.  Later  in  the  century  a pupil  of  his, 
styled  Maestro  Pogel,  is  found  at  the  Court  of  Juan  II.  of 
Castile,  where  he  executed  a portable  altar-piece,  which  that 
monarch  gave  to  the  Carthusian  Convent  of  Miraflores.  Another 
foreigner,  who  painted  at  the  same  Court,  would  seem  from  his 
name.  Maestro  Jorge  Ingles,  to  have  been  an  Englishman. 
By  command  of  the  Marquis  of  Santillana,  he  executed  in  1455 
a retablo  containing  portraits  of  that  nobleman  and  his  wife 
for  the  church  of  the  Hospital  of  Buitrago. 

Architecture  had  in  Spain,  as  elsewhere,  been  the  forerunner 
and  harbinger  of  the  other  Arts.  Where  church  or  cathedral 
arose,  there  artists  were  in  request  to  beautify  it.  Whatever  of 
sculpture  was  achieved  in  Spain  may  be  traced  back  to  the  rude 
painted  images  which  were  required  from  the  first  to  adorn  a 
shrine,  or  figure  in  a procession.  Already,  before  the  close  of  the 
middle  ages,  the  Cathedrals  of  Leon,  St.  Jago,  Tarragona,  and 


Ford : ‘ Handbook  of  Spain.’ 


EARLY  ART  IN  SPAIN. 


13 


Burgos,  were  in  existence,  and  had  proved  to  be  bountiful  homes  of 
artists.  ; But  the  highest  associations  of  painting  at  this  period 
centre  round  the  ancient  city  of  Toledo,  which  throughout  the 
fifteenth  century  led  the  way  in  the  arts.  On  the  walls  of  the 
cathedral  cloisters,  which  he  had  erected  in  1389,  Archbishop 
Tenorio  had  caused  to  he  painted  some  curious  frescoes  represent- 
ing the  burnings  of  heretics,  &c. , which  are  executed  in  imitation 
of  the  style  of  Giotto.  These  frescoes  were  almost  wholly  effaced 
in  1775  by  the  barbarian  chapter,  who  employed  some  feeble 
modern  artists  to  paint  them  over  with  legends  of  the  local 
saints."^  Juan  Alfon,  in  1418,  painted  a retablo  in  the  same 
cathedral.  Another  artist,  of  foreign  birth,  who  worked  here 
in  1495-99,  was  Juan  de  Borgona  (d.  1533?),  whose  Nativity 
of  the  Virgin  and  other  pictures  in  the  winter  Chapter-house 
closely  follow  in  their  style  the  School  of  Perugino.  His 
Conquest  of  Oran  in  the  Muzarabic  Chapel  is  inferior.  The  series 
of  portraits  of  the  primates  of  Toledo  were  also  painted  by  him. 
Pedro  Berruguete  (d.  ab.  1500),  another  Toledan  artist,  also 
worked  in  the  manner  of  Perugino. 

The  most  important  name  connected  with  Toledo  at  this  time 
is  that  of  Antonio  Eincon  (b.  at  Guadalaxara,  ab.  1446  ; 
d.  1533).  His  greatest  work,  however,  was  an  altar-piece  for 
the  village  of  Eobledo  de  Chavela,  near  the  Escurial.  A Virgin 
and  Child  in  the  Louvre  is  attributed  to  him,  and  the  Madrid 
Gallery  has  copies  of  his  fine  portraits  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella. 
Eincon  was  the  first  native  painter  deserving  of  the  nauie,  and 
from  the  natural  grace  of  style  which  he  was  the  first  to  intro- 
duce was  supposed  to  have  studied  in  Italy.  Some  pupils  of 
Eincon,  who  also  worked  at  Toledo,  were  his  son,  Fernando  del 
Eincon,  and  the  two  brothers,  Antonio  and  Inigo  de  Comontes, 
but  their  pictures  have  probably  perished.  A son  of  the  latter, 
Francisco  Comontes,  was  more  noted  than  his  father,  and 


Ford:  ‘ Handbook  of  Spain.’ 


u 


SPANISH  ART. 


painted  for  the  Chapter  of  Toledo  from  1547  till  his  death  in 
1565.  His  best  pictures  were  those  of  the  Virgin  and  St 
Bartholomew^  in  the  retahlo  in  one  of  the  chapels  of  the 
Cathedral. 

The  name  of  Fernando  Gallegos  (b.  Salamanca,  towards  the 
end  of  the  fifteenth  century,  d.  1550)  has  been  assigned  indis- 
criminately to  numberless  productions  of  early  Spanish  Art,  though 
undoubtedly  in  many  cases  without  foundation.  His  works  are 
said  to  have  resembled  in  style  those  of  Albrecht  Diirer,  whom 
certainly  he  had  never  seen.  Perhaps  the  altar-piece  in  the 
chapel  of  St.  Clement,  in  the  Cathedral  of  Salamanca,  is  authentic, 
as  well  as  a few  others  in  the  same  city.  Stirling  says  his  style 
sometimes  had  the  sweetness  of  Eaphael’s  second  manner.  Con- 
temporary with  Gallegos  was  Juan  de  Villoldo,  a distinguished 
painter  of  Toledo.  He  died  after  1551. 

Of  the  Masters  of  Seville  in  the  fifteenth  century,  the  foremost 
was  Juan  Sanchez  de  Castro,  “the  Morning  Star  of  Anda- 
lucia,”  * who  painted  in  1454  a retahlo  for  the  Cathedral  of  Seville, 
and  a fresco  of  St.  Julian  in  a church  of  the  same  city.  He  was 
alive  as  late  as  1516.  A pupil  of  his,  Juan  Nunez,  was  a good 
painter,  and  executed  several  pictures  for  the  cathedral,  one  of 
which  was  a Virgin  icith  the  dead  hodg  of  Christ.  Alexo 
Fernandez  painted  some  altar-pieces  at  Cordova  and  Seville. 

The  earliest  artists  of  the  Aragonese  School  of  whom  we 
possess  any  certain  information  are  found  at  Saragossa.  Eamon 
Torrente,  who  died  in  1323,  and  his  pupil,  Guillen  Tort,  were 
artists  of  some  note  there,  and  were  succeeded  after  a long 
interval  by  Bonant  de  Ortiga,  who  in  1457  was  painter  to 
the  Deputies  of  Aragon.  But  the  true  founder  of  the  Aragonese 
School  was  Pedro  de  Aponte,  who  studied  in  Italy  under 
Luca  Signorelli  and  Ghirlandajo,  and  brought  back  their  pre- 
cepts to  Spain.  He  was  painter  to  Juan  II.  of  Aragon,  and 
afterwards  to  Ferdinand  V.,  whom  he  accompanied  to  Castile  in 

* Stirling. 


EARLY  ART  IN  SPAIN. 


15 


1479.  Thomas  Pelegret  studied  in  Eome  under  Polidoro  da 
Caravaggio,  and  returning  to  Spain  in  the  reign  of  Charles  V., 
settled  at  Saragossa,  where  he  painted  frescoes  in  chiaroscuro. 

It  will  have  been  noticed  that  up  to  this  time  Art  has  put 
forth  all  its  efforts  under  the  shelter  of  the  Church,  and  that  its 
methods  are  still  tentative  and  imperfect.  Hone  of  the  three 
great  Schools  .can  as  yet  he  said  to  have  really  begun,  or  founded 
its  peculiar  style.  The  conquest  of  Granada,  in  1492,  gave  an 
important  impulse  to  Art,  and  Painting,  under  the  fostering  care 
of  Isabella  of  Aragon,  slowly  began  to  take  its  place  among  the 
dawning  glories  of  Spain.  No  less  important  was  the  conquest 
of  Naples  by  Ferdinand,  an  event  by  which  Spain  was  brought 
into  yet  closer  connection  than  before  with  Italy  and  her  reviving 
Art.  Already  we  have  seen  examples  of  single  Italian  masters 
working  in  Spain,  and  of  Spanish  artists  studying  in  Italy.  A 
native  of  the  latter  country,  Nrccond  Francesco  Pisano,  was 
painter  to  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  in  1504.  The  movement  thus 
begun  reached  its  full  consummation  in  the  next  period. 


CHAPTER  ir. 

PREDOMIXANCE  OP  THE  ITALIAN  INFLUENCE.  RISE  OF 
THE  THREE  GREAT  NATIVE  SCHOOLS. 

(a.d.  1500—1600.) 

ITALIAN  AND  OTHER  PRECURSORS. 

IT  must  not  be  supposed  that  early  Spanish  Art  ends  abruptly 
with  the  fifteenth  century.  For  some  time  after  that  date, 
it  retains  the  stijff  and  unformed  character  likely  to  result  from 
the  attempts  of  artists  who  still  work,  for  the  most  part,  in  the 
cloister,  undisturbed  by  any  promptings  from  without.  Only 
gradually  does  this  conventional  Art  come  under  the  full  power 
of  the  influence  that  is  borne  in  upon  it  with  the  opening  of  the 
sixteenth  century.  At  the  accession  of  Charles  V.  in  1516, 
Europe  had  awoke,  as  it  were,  to  a new  life,  and  students  were 
flocking  from  all  parts  to  Italy,  as  the  centre  of  this  new  bright- 
ness. Spain  did  not  escape  the  universal  fascination.  The 
intercourse  between  that  country  and  Italy,  fostered  indirectly 
by  a widening  commerce,  was  now  to  become  close  and  frequent. 
Throughout  the  greater  part  of  the  sixteenth  century,  Spanish 
Art  appears  like  a captive  led  in  willing  chains  by  the  superior 


ITALIAN  AND  OTHER  PRECURSORS. 


17 


o-enius  of  Italy,  yet  beneath  this  apparent  domination  there  is 
slowly  growing  up  the  germ  of  that  native  feeling,  which  is 
afterwards  to  find  its  full  development  in  the  works  of 
Velazquez  and  Murillo. 

The  Italians,  whose  immediate  example  had  so  great  an  effect 
upon  Castilian  Art,  will  he  named  presently  in  connection  with 
their  work  at  the  Escurial.  Two  only  need  he  mentioned  here — ■ 
Julio  and  Alessandro,  who,  early  in  the  reign  of  Charles  V., 
were  the  first  to  introduce  fresco  painting  into  Spain.  They 
were  employed  at  the  Alhambra,  and  afterwards  founded  a 
school  with  some  success  in  Andalucia. 

Meanwhile,  artists  of  other  nationality  were  still  working  in 
Spain,  and  contributing  to  form  the  native  taste.  Jerom  Bosch 
(b.  Bois-le-diic  1460-64),  who  painted  pictures,  of  which  the  style 
is  indicated  by  such  subjects  as  the  Fall  of  Lucifer,  the 
Triinnjoh  of  Death,  and  others,  which  Avell  entitle  him  to  the 
name  of  the  “ Hogarth  of  the  lower  world,”  if  report  is  to  be 
believed,  paid  a short  visit  to  Spain.  Jan  Cornelis  Yermeyen 
(ah.  1500 — 1559),  a Dutch  painter,  was  a special  favourite  of 
Charles  Y.  ; he  excelled  in  portraits,  landscapes,  and  sacred 
subjects.  By  the  Spaniards  he  AAms  called  “ El  Barbudo,”  or  ‘‘  de 
Barbalonga.  A more  prominent  name  is  that  of  Pedro  Campana 
El  Maese  Pedro  ”),  (b.  Brussels  1503),  avIio,  after  twenty  years’ 
study  in  Italy,  lived  long  enough  at  Seville  to  rank  as  a Spanish 
Master.  His  Descent  from  the  Cross,  already  mentioned,  is 
unpleasing,  from  the  ineagreness  of  the  figures,  and  its  antique 
harshness  of  execution.  It  Avas,  hoAvever,  greatly  admired  by 
Murillo.  Campaha’s  Purification  of  the  Virgin,  painted  in  1553 
for  the  Cathedral  of  Seville,  is  marked  by  Italian  softness  and 
beauty.  Besides  his  other  Avorks,  he  Avas  also  noted  for  his  por- 
traits. He  died  old  at  Brussels  in  1580,  leaving  at  Seville  a son, 
Juan  Baptista  Caaipana,  aa4io  aavts  also  a painter.  Contem- 
porary Avith  Campanaat  Seville,  lived  Francisco Erutet  (1548 — 
1550).  Flemish  in  colouring,  he  followed  Italian  models  in 

SP 


0 


18 


SPANISH  ART. 


composition.  His  best  pictures  were  in  an  altar-piece  represent- 
ing tlie  Adoration  of  the  Three  Kings.  Sturmio,  a native  of 
Ziriczee,  was  employed  in  1555  by  the  Chapter  of  Seville  to 
execute  nine  pictures  on  panel,  the  colouring  of  which  is  noticeable 
as  the  earliest  example  of  the  fine  brown  tones  peculiar  to  the 
School  of  Seville. 

The  Spaniards  who  did  most  to  promote  the  taste  for  Italian 
Art  among  their  countrymen  were  Alonso  Berruguete  and 
Caspar  Becerra,  both  of  whom  were  sculptors  and  architects 
as  well  as  painters.  The  former,  born  about  1480  at  Valladolid, 
was  universally  allowed  to  be  the  foremost  artist  of  his  age  in 
Spain.  Passing  from  an  attorney’s  office  to  the  studio  of 
Michelangelo,  he  assisted  as  a student  in  the  Cartoon  of  the 
War  of  Pisa.  Eeturning  to  Spain  in  1520,  he  was  employed 
by  Charles  V.  at  Madrid  and  Granada.  His  best  pictures  were 
painted  for  the  Cathedral  of  Palencia,  and  the  Church  of  Yentosa. 
Por  the  stiff  and  angular  style  then  prevailing,  he  substituted 
the  free  outlines  and  rounded  contours  of  Italy.  He  also  made 
improvements  in  the  drawing  of  the  human  figure.  All  that 
was  good  in  painting  and  sculpture  between  1500  and  1560  was 
attributed  to  Berruguete.  Becerra  Avas  born  at  Baeza  in  1520, 
and  studied  in  Italy,  perhaps  under  Michelangelo.  On  his 
return  to  Spain,  shortly  after  1556,  he  became  Court  Painter  to 
Philip  II. , for  whom  he  executed  some  frescoes  in  the  Palace  of 
Madrid  and  the  Pardo.  He  also  executed  paintings  and  statuary 
for  the  Churches  and  Convents  of  Saragossa,  Valladolid,  and 
other  places.  Though  chiefly  a sculptor,  his  influence  on  Art 
in  general  was  second  only  to  that  of  Berruguete.  He  died  in 
1570. 

Contemporary  Avith  Berruguete,  and,  like  him,  sculptor  and 
architect  as  well  as  painter,  Avas  Pedro  Machuca,  who  studied 
in  Italy,  and  Avas  said  to  resemble  Eaphael  in  style.  Hone  of  his 
pictures  are  left.  Fernando  Yanez,  who  worked  in  Spain  in 
1531,  may  also  possibly  have  been  a pupil  of  Eaphael,  a sup- 


ITALIAN  AND  OTHER  PRECURSORS. 


19 


position  Tvliicli  is  borne  out  by  a painting  by  liim  on  panel  in 
the  chapel  of  the  Albernoces  at  Cuenca.  Ford  says  that  his 
style  is  rather  Florentine  than  Eoman.  Giovanni  Spagnuolo, 
also  called  Juan  de  Espaho,  is  said  by  Vasari  to  have  studied 
under  Peru"ino,  but  he  belongs  rather  to  the  Schools  of  Italy  than 
Spain.  The  works  of  Diego  Correa,  some  of  which  bear  the  date 
1550,  denote  a close  study  of  Kaphael.  His  colouring  is  rich, 
and  he  displays  grace  and  leeling.  In  his  figures  and  draperies  he 
often  folloAVS  Perugino.  Pedro  Rubiales  gained  great  distinction 
in  Rome,  but  he  Avould  seem,  like  Giovanni  Spagnuolo,  to  have 
lived  and  died  abroad. 

The  building  of  the  Escurial  forms  an  epoch  in  the  history  of 
Spanish  Art.  Begun  in  1563  by  Philip  II.,  it  became  one 
of  the  greatest  “ shrines  of  painting,  for  which  Titian  and 
Velazquez  laboured,  where  Rubens  and  Murillo  studied,  and  a 
line  of  kings  for  two  centuries,  hived  the  treasures  of  European 
Art.”* 

The  steady  rise  in  social  estimation  made  by  painting  up  to  this 
time  is  summed  up  in  a saying  of  Charles  V.  : “ There  are  many 
princes ; there  is  but  one  Titian.”  And  that  painting  was  not 
considered  derogatory  to  rank  is  proved  by  the  example  of  Don 
Felipe  de  Guevara,  a nobleman  in  the  emperor’s  service,  who 
was  also  an  artist.  Under  Philip,  the  royal  favour  Avas  extended 
to  Art  even  more  freely,  and  Castilian  Artists  were  allured  from 
the  shadoAV  of  church  and  convent  to  bask  in  the  sunshine  of 
the  Court,  and  to  share  the  labours  and  honours  of  the  foreigners 
whom  the  king  eagerly  gathered  round  him  to  aid  in  his  cherished 
undertaking.  At  the  head  of  these,  though  not  among  them,  we 
must  place  Titian,  Charles  V.’s  greatest  service  to  Spain  f for 
although  that  great  artist  Avas  perhaps  ncA^er  in  Spain,  the  Escurial 
is  filled  with  pictures  by  his  hand,  and  his  influence  Avas  strongly 


Stirling. 


t Ibid. 


c 2 


20 


SPANISH  ART. 


marked  in  the  colouring  of  the  Castilian  School.  Juan  Bautista 
Gastello,  born  1509,  called,  from  the  town  of  his  birth,  “El 
Bergamasco,”  entered  Philip’s  service  in  1567,  and  died  at  Madrid 
in  1569.  He  worked  with  Becerra  at  the  Alcazar  of  Madrid  and 
designed  the  staircase  of  the  Escurial.  His  drawing  and  compo- 
sition were  in  the  Eoman  style ; his  colouring  had  some  of  the 
splendour  of  the  Venetian.  In  1583  Luca  Cambiaso  (1527 — 
1585),  head  of  the  School  of  Genoa,  was  specially  engaged  by 
Philip  after  painting,  as  a proof  of  his  powers,  the  Martyrdom  of 
St.  Lawrence.  He  painted  the  frescoes  on  the  ceiling  of  the  choir 
of  the  Escurial,  and  other  large  works.  He  painted  in  a peculiarly 
fierce  manner,  sometimes  using  both  hands.  His  son,  Orazio 
Cambiaso,  and  his  pupil,  Lazzaro  Tavarone,  executed  in  1587 
the  frescoes  of  the  Battles  of  Higueruela  * and  St.  Quintin  in 
the  Sala  de  las  Batallas,”  in  the  Escurial,  a work  in  which 
they  were  assisted  by  the  two  sons  of  Gastello,  Hicolao  Granelo, 
and  Fabricio  Gastello. 

Eomulo  Cincinato,  of  Florence,  was  sent  to  Philip  in  1569  by 
the  Spanish  Ambassador  in  Eome.  An  altar-piece  representing 
the  Circumcision  in  the  Jesuits’  Church  at  Cuenca  was  his 
master-piece.  He  was  accompanied  by  Patricio  Caxes  of  Arezzo, 
who  painted  much  in  the  Pardo.  Of  Peregrino  Pellegrini, 
called  Tibaldi  (1527 — 1598),  a native  of  Bologna,  whose  chief 
work  at  the  Escurial  was  his  frescoes  in  the  Library,  Ford  says  that 
he  “ out-heroded  Michelangelo,  without  possessing  a tithe  of  his 
grandeur  or  originality.”  He  nevertheless  returned  to  Italy, 
loaded  with  honours  and  rewards  from  Philip.  Another  less  suc- 
cessful painter,  whose  powers  did  not  equal  his  excessive  vanity, 
was  Federico  Zuccaro.  He  was  invited  to  Spain  specially  to  aid 
in  the  decoration  of  the  Escurial,  but  failing  to  satisfy  the  king, 
returned  to  Italy.  He  left,  however,  in  Spain,  a pupil  who 
worked  with  far  different  results. 

* “Battle  of  the  Fig-tree,”  in  which  the  Moors  were  defeated  by  Juan 
IF,  in  1431.  The  costume  is  very  curious. 


Descent  feom  the  Ckoss.  By  Bartolommeo  Caroucci. 

In  the  Madrid  Gallery, 


22 


SPANISH  ART. 


Bartolommeo  Carducci  (1560 — 1608),  a student  of  the 
Florentine  School,  was  one  of  the  Italian  Masters  who  did  most 
to  promote  the  Fine  Arts  in  Spain.  His  works  show  an  imita- 
tion of  the  antique,  and  are  accurate  in  drawing,  and  harmonious 
in  colour.  He  was  a most  conscientious  artist,  touching  and 
re-touching  his  pictures  continually  till  they  reached  perfection. 
One  of  his  most  important  works.  The  Descent  from  the  C?'oss 
— in  which  Joseph  of  Arimathea  and  Mcodemus  are  carefully 
taking  down  the  body  of  Jesus,  while  the  Magdalene,  seated  by 
the  side  of  a ladder,  is  weeping  at  the  sight  of  the  wounds  in 
His  feet,  and  the  other  Maries  are  spreading  out  a linen  cloth 
for  the  dead  Christ — is  among  the  chief  pictures  of  the  “ Museo 
DEL  Prado (Ho.  79).  The  figures  are  of  the  size  of  life. 
(See  Illustration.) 

The  list  of  Italians  may  conclude  with  the  two  brothers, 
Antonio  and  Vincenzio  Campi,  noted  for  their  frescoes  at 
Cremona,  who  were  in  Spain  in  1583. 

The  names  of  three  Flemish  artists  occur  in  connection  with 
the  Escurial.  Antonis  More,  Michiel  van  Coxcien,  and 
Antonio  Pupiler.  The  first,  Avho  came  to  Spain  in  1552,  was 
so  highly  favoured  by  Philip  II.  as  to  excite  much  jealousy  ; and 
falling  under  suspicions  of  heresy  from  the  Inquisition,  was  glad 
to  return  to  Brussels.  More  excelled  in  portraits.  He  finished 
his  works  with  great  care,  and  sometimes  coloured  in  the  rich 
style  of  Titian.  Coxcien,  being  sent  on  a commission  to  Spain 
to  copy  a Van  Eyck  in  the  Palace  of  Madrid,  was  employed  by 
Philip  II.  to  paint  some  pictures  for  the  Escurial.  Pupiler 
entered  that  prince’s  service  in  1556,  hut  none  of  his  works  seems 
to  be  known. 


SCHOOL  OF  CASTILE. 

It  is  time  now  to  turn  to  the  Spanish  artists,  who,  while 
undergoing  the  influence  of  their  foreign  rivals,  held  their  own 


SCHOOL  OF  CASTILE. 


23 


beside  them  both  in  skill  and  fame.  Hitherto  the  fairest  efforts 


Madonna  Dolorosa.  By  Morales. 


of  native  Art  had  been  put  forth  at  Toledo.  How  Madrid  becomes 
the  Art  metropolis  of  the  great  School  of  Castile^  and  the  Court 


24 


SPANISH  ART. 


begins  to  divide  with  the  Church  the  labours  of  her  artists. 
One  of  the  noblest  of  these  was  Luis  de  Morales  (born  at  Badajos 
about  1509),  called  “the  Divine,”  “the  first  Spaniard  whose 
genius  and  good  fortune  have  obtained  him  a place  among  the 
great  painters  of  Europe.”  * His  life  was  obscure,  and  many  of 
his  pictures  little  known,  from  their  being  hidden  in  out-of-the- 
way  places.  Called  from  his  quiet  labours  among  the  churches 
and  oratories  of  Estremadura  to  work  at  the  Escurial  in  1564, 
he  seems  there  to  have  painted  only  one  picture,  Christ  going  to 
Calvary,  and  then  to  have  returned  to  Estremadura,  where  he 
died  poor  in  1586.  Morales  was  the  first  Spaniard  born  and 
bred  who  invested  the  thought  and  feeling  of  his  native  land 
with  the  beauties  of  Italian  expression.  He  was  never  abroad, 
and  yet  he  might  have  painted  side  by  side  with  Eaphael.  f His 
subjects  were  always  devotional,  sad,  and  sublime  in  conception 
and  expression.  He  loved  to  paint  Saviours  crowned  with  thorns, 
and  Madonnas  dolorosas.  He  was  pure  and  graceful  in  design, 
warm  and  brilliant  in  colouring.  He  finished  highly,  his  faces 
being  sometimes  too  smooth,  and  his  treatment  of  the  hair  was 
peculiarly  elaborate.  There  are  pictures  by  Morales  in  the 
Galleries  of  Madrid  and  in  the  Louvre,  for  some  of  the  best  in  his 
native  city  of  Badajos  were  taken  by  the  French : sixteen  of  the 
finest  are  in  the  Parish  Church  of  Arroya  del  Puerco,  but  they 
are  in  a neglected  state.  There  is  also  a celebrated  Christ  on 
the  Cross  by  him  at  Evora,  in  Portugal,  in  the  chapel  of  the 
Monastery  of  St.  Catherine  of  Siena.  Morales  left,  as  pupils,  a 
son,  Cristobal  de  Morales,  a feeble  imitator  of  his  father,  and 
Juan  Labrador,  who  painted  fruit  and  flower-pieces.  The 
latter  died  at  Madrid  in  1600. 

In  Alonso  Sanchez  Coello  (b.  in  Valencia,  early  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  d.  1590)  appears  the  first  of  the  great 
Spanish  portrait-painters.  A special  favourite  of  Philip  II. 
he  painted  almost  as  many  portraits  of  that  prince  as  Titian, 
* Stirling.  t Ibid, 


SCHOOL  OF  CASTILE. 


25 


and  with  as  much  vigour  as  Yelazquez.  His  style  was  Italian, 
hut  whether  he  studied  at  Eonie  is  uncertain.  Subsequently 
he  became  a pupil  of  Antonis  More,  and,  on  the  retirement  of 
the  latter,  was  made  painter  to  Philip  II.  Pope  Gregory 
XIII.,  and  other  magnates,  were  also  his  munificent  patrons. 
Compared  with  his  portraits,  Sanchez  Coello’s  historic  works 
were  few,  and  many  perished  in  the  fires  of  the  Prado  &nd  the 
Palace  at  Madrid.  Several  of  the  large  altar-pieces  of  Saints 
in  the  Church  of  the  Escurial  were  his  work.  There  are  ten 
pictures  by  him  in  the  Madrid  Gallery,  and  nine  of  his  por- 
traits are  in  the  Louvre.  We  give  an  engraving  of  a typical  work 
by  him — a portrait  of  the  Infanta  Isabella.  A similar  female 
portrait  is  in  the  possession  of  Lord  Xorthbrook,  and  another  is 
in  the  collection  of  the  Duke  of  Devonshire,  at  Chiswick,  where 
it  is  miscalled  a Yelazquez. 

Sanchez  Coello’s  best  pupil,  Juan  Pantoja  de  la  Cruz  (1551 
— 1609),  became  painter  to  Philip  II.,  and  was  a good  hand  at 
portraits,  though  not  equal  to  his  master.  In  two  of  his  pictures, 
the  Birth  of  the  Virgin,  and  the  Birth  of  Christ,  the  figures  are 
said  to  be  likenesses  of  the  family  of  Philip  III.  Loth  his 
pictures  and  those  of  Sanchez  Coello  are  interesting,  apart  from 
their  merits,  as  showing  the  fashions  of  the  old  Spanish  Court. 

Caspar  Becerra  has  been  already  named  as  a promoter  of  Italian 
taste.  Some  of  his  pupils  were  worthy  of  their  master.  Of 
these  the  most  distinguished  was  Miguel  Barroso  (b.  Consegra, 
1538,  d.  1590),  who  worked  at  Toledo  in  1585,  and,  becoming 
painter  to  the  king  in  1589,  painted  some  frescoes  in  the  Escurial. 
His  best  works  are  correct  in  drawing,  but  feeble  in  invention. 
Three  others  of  Becerra’s  pupils  painted  with  some  credit : 
Bartolome  del  Kio  Bernuis,  at  Toledo  in  1607-27,  Francisco 
Lopez  at  Madrid,  and  Geromino  Yasquez  at  Yalladolid. 

The  next  great  artist  to  be  mentioned  is  noteworthy  as  one 
of  several  who  drew  their  first  inspiration  direct  from  the 
Church.  Juan  Fernandez  Xavarrete,  surnamed  “El  Mudo  ” 


T rr 


St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul.  By  Juan  Fernandez  ISTavarrete. 

In  the  Escurial. 


SCHOOL  OF  CASTILE. 


27 


(the  Dumb),  was  born  at  Logroho,  in  1526,  and  brought  up  by 
a Fray  Vicente  de  Santo  Domingo,  in  the  neighbouring  Mon- 
astery of  Estrella.  He  was  afterwards  enabled  to  visit  Italy, 
and  worked  at  Venice,  in  the  house  of  Titian.  Returning  to 
Spain,  he  executed  several  pictures  for  tlie  IMonastery  at  Estrella, 
and  in  1568  j)ainted  for  Philip  at  the  Escurial,  where  his  great 
productions  must  still  be  sought.  One  of  his  finest  pictures  there 
Avas  the  Abraham  and  the  AncfeJs,  AAdiich  was  hung  in  the  entrance- 
hall  of  the  convent.  This  picture  is  remarkable  for  the  peculiar 
effect  of  the  light,  and  the  rich  gloAV  of  colour  on  the  bending 
form  of  Abraham.  According  to  the  ideas  of  the  Inquisition, 
howeA'er,  he  had  sinned  by  representing  the  angels  with  beards. 
In  another  picture,  too,  a Hohj  Family,  he  had  indecorously 
introduced  a cat  and  dog  quarrelling.  Excellent  examples  of  his 
style,  also,  are  the  eight  pictures  painted  in  1576  for  the  side 
altar  of  the  Escurial,  all  that  he  lived  to  finish  out  of  thirty-two 
Avhich  he  had  contracted  to  paint.  The  figures  of  Apostles  and 
Saints  in  these  are  very  striking,  both  in  dignity  of  form  and 
beauty  of  colour.  El  Mudo  Avell  deserves  his  title  of  the 
“ Spanish  Titian.”  In  freedom  and  boldness  of  design  he  was 
surpassed  by  none  of  his  cotemporaries,  and  he  possessed  tlie 
poAvers  of  Rubens  Avithout  his  coarseness.  He  died  in  1579  at 
Toledo.  Some  of  the  unfinished  altar-pieces  of  El  Mudo  AAwe 
completed  Avith  some  success  by  Luis  de  Carbajal  (b.  Toledo, 
1534),  a pupil  of  Juan  de  Villoldo.  Besides  these,  he  painted  a 
Magdalen  and  a Nativity.  In  1591  he  painted  Avitli  Bias  del 
Prado  at  Toledo,  and  is  knoAvn  to  have  A\mrked  at  the  PiiAdo  as 
late  as  1613.  The  chief  works  of  Blas  del  Prado  Avere  those 
above  mentioned  for  the  Minims,  at  Toledo,  comprising  a Holy 
Family,  and  others.  He  Avas  also  employed  some  time  at 
^Morocco.  Bias  Avas  an  able  painter,  and  very  skilful  in  fruit- 
pieces. 

Passing  over  several  minor  artists,  whose  Avorks  require  no 
special  mention,  Ave  come  to  a feAV  Castilian  painters,  Avho  Avere 


The  Ahtist’s  Daughter,  By  Domenico  Theotocopuli. 


SCHOOL  OF  CASTILE. 


29 


employed  at  this  time  chiefly  by  the  Church.  At  the  head  of 
these  we  may  place  Domenico  Theotocopuli,  surnamed  El 
Greco  ” (b.  about  1548).  He  first  worked  at  Toledo,  where  he 
painted  for  the  Cathedral  his  fine  picture  of  the  Strip]ping  of 
Christ.  The  glowing  splendour  of  the  central  figure,  and  the 
grouping  of  the  secondary  ones,  give  an  unsurpassed  value  to 
this  work.  His  masterpiece,  also  painted  at  Toledo,  in  1584. 
ih.Q  Burial  of  the  Count  Orgaz,  resembles  Tintoretto  in  execution. 
The  upper  part  has  the  painter’s  faults  of  style,  but  the  reality 
of  the  lower  figures  is  wonderful.  The  subject  of  the  picture 
is  the  miraculous  burial  of  the  Count  by  St.  Stephen  and  St. 
Augustine  in  the  presence  of  the  friends  and  family.  Finely 
painted  also  was  a picture  of  Christ  Crucified,  once  in  the  Church 
of  La  Eeyna,  at  Toledo.  While  such  pictures  show  the  admir- 
able side  of  this  extraordinary  artist,  his  extravagance  comes 
out  in  the  Saint  Maurice  which  he  painted  for  the  king 
at  the  Escurial.  It  is  hard,  dry,  and  harsh,  and  startles  from 
its  strange  flashes  of  light.  El  Greco  was  noted  for  his  un- 
surpassed Titian-like  colouring,  and  his  extravagance  probably 
arose  from  a desire  to  vindicate  his  originality.  His  portraits  are 
very  fine  ; there  is  a remarkable  one  of  his  own  daughter  in  the 
Louvre.  El  Greco,  who  was  also  a sculptor  and  architect,  died 
in  1G25  at  a great  age,  and  was  celebrated  in  a sonnet  by 
Gongora. 

Luis  de  Yelasco  Avas  in  1581  painter  to  the  Chapter  of 
Toledo,  and  painted  an  Incarnation  there  in  1585.  He  had 
considerable  acquaintance  Avith  antique  sculpture,  and  the  best 
Italian  paintings.  Isaac  de  Helle,  Avho  Avas  also  painter 
to  the  Chapter,  executed  in  1568  a picture  of  St.  Nicasius, 
Avhich  Avas  looked  on  as  the  Avork  of  Berruguete.  His  style  had 
something  of  the  bold  manner  of  Michelangelo.  Some  artists 
of  lesser  note  Avere  Alonso  de  Herrera,  avIio  in  1590  painted 
six  pictures  for  the  high  altar  at  Yillacastin ; Martin 
Galindez  (b.  Haro,  Old  Castile,  1547,  d.  1627),  Avho  painted 


30 


SPANISH  ART. 


some  fair  pictures  for  the  Chartreuse  of  Paular ; and  Josef  and 
Gregorio  Martinez,  who  both  flourished  at  Valladolid  near  the 
end  of  the  sixteenth  century.  The  former  probably  studied  at 
Florence,  and  painted  chiefly  for  the  Convent  of  St.  Augustine, 
among  other  pictures,  an  Annunciation. 


While  Castilian  painters  were  winning  wealth  and  honours 
at  Madrid,  those  of  the  South  were  making  steady  progress 
under  the  fostering  care  of  the  Church.  The  School  of  Anda- 
lucia  now  comes  into  prominence  under  its  first  real  founder, 
the  pious  Luis  de  Vargas  (b.  Seville,  1502,  d.  about  1568),  “ the 
best  painter  of  the  Sevilian  line  from  Sanchez  de  Castro  to 
Velazquez.”  ^ His  earliest  known  work  is  an  altar-piece,  in  the 
Chapel  of  the  Nativity,  in  Seville  Cathedral,  of  the  date  1555, 
but  his  best  knowm  picture  is  that  called  La  Gamha,  from  the 
prominence  given  to  the  leg  of  Adam.  One  figure  of  a child 
might  almost  recall  a Cupid  of  Eaphael.  In  1563-8  he  painted 
the  Moorish  niches  of  the  Cathedral,  wdth  figures  of  Justa  and 
Rufina,  and  other  Sevilian  saints,  which  are  now  faded.  Faded, 
too,  is  the  fresco  of  Christ  hearing  the  Cross,  or  the  Calle  de 
Ainargura  (Wstj  of  Bitterness),  which  is  outside  the  Court  of 
Orange-trees.  Vargas  was  admirable  in  portraits.  On  part  of 
the  retablo  containing  his  Gamha  he  had  executed  the  portrait  of 
the  Precentor,  Don  J.  de  Medina,  which,  it  is  related,  the  boys 
used  admiringly  to  compare  with  the  original  as  he  said  his 
prayers  before  it.  Vargas  is  said  to  have  been  a pupil  of  Perino  del 
Vaga,  and  his  works  are  strongly  imbued  with  Italian  feeling. 
They  exhibit  a grandeur  and  simplicity  of  design,  correct  drawing, 
and  fresh  colouring.  There  is  great  purity  and  grace  in  his 
female  heads. 

* Stirling. — Velazquez,  though  born  at  Seville,  belongs,  by  his  work,  to 
the  School  of  Castile. 


SCHOOL  OF  ANDALUCIA. 


Tiir.  ?sATrvrrv.  ]',r  Ln>  nr,  In  thr  ml  ai  Smllr., 


32 


SPANISH  ART. 


Antonio  db  Arfian,  a native  of  Triana,  a suburb  of  Seville, 
painted  in  1587,  in  conjunction  with  his  son,  Alonso'de  Arfian, 
a History  of  St.  George  for  the  altar  of  the  Parish  Church  of 
St.  Mary  Magdalene.  His  frescoes,  none  of  which  has  been 
preserved,  were  the  best  till  those  of  Yargas  were  painted,  and 
he  was  the  first  Sevilian  artist  who  painted  landscape  and  per- 
spective back-grounds  for  bas  reliefs. 

One  of  his  pupils,  Alonso  Yasquez  (d.  1649),  beginning,  like 
many  another  Sevilian  artist,  with  sargas'''  (pictures,  that  is, 
roughly  executed  on  a sort  of  coarse  cloth),  attained  to  painting 
in  fresco.  He  was  famous  for  his  fruit-pieces. 

Juan  Bautista  Yasquez  was  a Sevilian  of  genius,  who  did 
much  to  banish  the  stiffness  and  timidity  of  style  which  yet 
lingered. 

Pablo  db  Cespedes  (b.  1538,  at  Cordova,  d.  1608),  was 
celebrated  as  sculptor,  architect,  poet,  and  painter.  He  twice 
visited  Italy,  where  he  studied  either  under  Michelangelo  or 
Zuccaro,  but  his  style  resembled  that  of  Correggio.  His  best 
works  have  either  perished,  or  are  decaying.  A St.  Jolin^  a St. 
Andreiv,  and  a neglected  Last  Supper,  once  his  masterpiece,  may 
be  seen  in  the  Chapel  of  St.  Paul,  in  the  Cathedral  of  Cordova, 
of  which  he  v/as  a canon,  and  where  he  was  buried.  A panel 
painted  by  him  is  still  in  the  Chapter-house  of  Seville,  at  which 
place  he  often  worked.  Cespedes  became  one  of  the  best  colour- 
ists of  Spain.  It  was  to  him  that  the  School  of  Andalucia  owed 
the  fine  tone  of  its  flesh  tints.  He  was  a careful  worker.  He 
studied  anatomy,  and  was  very  skilful  in  foreshortening.  Some 
good  effects  of  light  and  shade  were  due  to  him,  and  he  displayed 
truth  of  expression  and  invention.  A friend  of  Montanes,  his 
own  literary  reputation  was  great ; he  wrote  a poem  on  painting^ 
and  an  essay  on  the  comparison  between  ancient  and  modern 
sculpture  and  painting. 

The  fame  of  Antonio  Mohedano  (b.  Lucena,  1561,  d.  1625), 
rests  only  on  tradition.  His  chief  works  were  frescoes  in  the 


The  Last  Sutper.  By  Pablo  he  Cespedes.  In  the  Cathedral  at  Cordova. 


34 


SPANISH  ART. 


Cloister  of  the  Franciscans  at  Seville,  and  at  the  Cathedral  of 
Cordova.  He  is  also  supposed  to  have  painted  all  the  works 
attributed  to  Vargas  in  the  palace  of  the  Cardinal  Archbishop 
Hiho  de  Guevara,  at  Seville.  He  was  one  of  the  few  Spanish 
artists  who  carefully  studied  the  living  model. 

The  works  of  Pedro  de  Villegas  Marmolejo  (h.  Seville,  1520, 
d.  1597)  display  great  grace  and  beauty  of  style.  He  studied  in 
Italy,  where  he  imitated  the  Florentine  School.  Some  of  his 
pictures,  which  are  now  very  rare,  were  a 'St.  Lazarus,  thought 
to  he  worthy  of  Campaha,  an  Annunciation,  and  a Virgin  and 
Christ. 

Other  artists  of  reputation  at  Seville  were  Antonio  Perez 
(1548 — 1564) ; Luis  Fernandez  (at  work  in  1580)  ; and  Blas 
DE  Ledesma,  a successful  imitator  of  the  style  of  Julio  and 
Alessandro. 

The  following  were  some  foreign  painters  who  worked  at  Seville 
during  this  period.  Cesare  Arbasia,  a pupil  of  the  Zuccaros, 
executed  some  pictures  of  little  merit  at  Cordova.  His  land- 
scapes were  better.  He  died  probably  in  1614.  Mateo  Perez 
DE  Alesio  was  another  Italian,  who  was  in  high  favour  at 
Seville.  He  painted  a gigantic  St.  Christopher  for  the  Chapter 
of  the  Cathedral  in  1584,  and  a second  for  the  Church  of  St. 
Miguel.  He  died  in  Pome  in  1600.  Lanzi  says  he  was  the  same 
as  Mateo  de  Lecce.  From  Portugal  there  came  Vasqqez,  whose 
Descent  from  the  Cross,  and  St.  Sebastian,  both  on  panel,  show 
skill  in  anatomy,  though  stiff;  and  Vasco  Pereyra,  who  was  in 
Seville  in  1594,  wLere  he  restored  the  Calle  de  Ama.rgura  of 
V'argas,  and  painted  a Natioity.  The  latter  shows  some  skill, 
blit  is  dry  and  harsh  in  colour. 


SCHOOL  OF  VALENCIA. 


35 


SCHOOL  OF  VALENCIA. 

The  School  of  Valencia,  in  a greater  degree  even  than  its 
rivals,  arose  under  the  protection  of  the  Church.  Thomas, 
Archbishop  of  Villanueva,  called  ‘‘the  Good,”  was  its  patron* 
its  founder  was  the  saintly  Vicente  Juan  Macip,  called  Vicente 
JoANES,  or  Juan  de  Juanes  (b.  Fuente  la  Higuera,  1523,  d. 
1579),  whose  pencil  was  wholly  dedicated  to  religion,  and  who 
habitually  confessed  and  communicated  before  undertaking  a 
sacred  picture.  He  worked  much  for  the  Chapter,  and  the 
Monasteries  of  the  Carmelites  and  Jesuits.  His  style,  grave  and 
austere,  recalls  that  of  the  early  Florentine  or  German  Masters, 
but  his  colouring  is  splendid,  and  his  vigour  and  variety  of 
invention  wonderful.  His  numerous  faces  of  Clirist  were 
unrivalled ; the  best,  perhaps,  being  that  “ With  the  Sacred 
Cup,”  once  in  the  Chapel  of  the  Franciscans,  and  an  Immaculate 
Conception  which  he  painted  for  the  Jesuits’  Convent,  from  the 
dream  of  a Jesuit,  was  universally  known  as  La  purissima.  The 
greater  part  of  his  works  are  at  Valencia.  In  the  Cathedral  is  a 
Holy  Family^  which  recalls  Eaphael,  and  a Baptism  of  Christ. 
The  six  pictures,  still  existing,  on  the  Life  of  St.  Stephen,  once 
in  the  Church  of  that  name,  now  in  the  Madrid  Galhwy,  and 
tne  Last  Supper  in  the  Church  of  St.  Nicholas,  are  excellent 
examples  of  his  style.  {See  Illustration.) 

The  Martyrdom  of  St.  Stephen,  which  represents  Saul  walk- 
ing stern  and  resolute  by  the  side  of  his  victim,  while  the  mob 
surround  them  in  vulgar  joy,  might  have  been  taken  from  an 
actual  scene  in  Spain.  Among  other  pictures  in  the  INIadrid 
Gallery  attributed  to  Joanes  may  be  mentioned  the  Visitation,  and 
the  Martyrdom  of  Santa  Lies.  In  portraits,  Joanes  has  seldom 
been  excelled.  That  of  Don  Luis  del  Castelvy  is  the  finest,  and 
Ln  its  force  of  character,  and  ease  of  execution,  equal  to  Faphael. 

A miniature  Coronation  of  the  Virgin  is  a highly  remarkable 

D 2 


The  Entombment  of  St.  Stephen.  By  Juan  he  Juanes, 

In  the  Madrid  Gallery. 


SCHOOL  OF  ARAGON. 


37 


work.  Of  his  pictures  in  the  Louvre  none  is  first-rate.  A son  of 
his,  Juan  Vicente  Joanes,  imitated  his  father.  Two  daughters, 
Dorotea  and  Margarita,  were  even  better  than  their  brotiier. 

Like  Joanes,  Pedro  Nicolas  Factor,  “ El  Beato”  (b.  Valencia, 
1520,  d.  1853),  was  early  noted  for  his  piety,  which  afterwards 
brought  him  the  honour  of  canonization.  He  assumed  the  Francis- 
can habit  in  1538,  and  his  works,  none  of  which  are  known  to 
exist,  were  painted  in  the  intervals  of  an  austere  and  self-denying 
life.  His  favourite  subject  was  the  Passion  of  our  Lord.  His 
pictures  were  poor  in  colouring,  but  skilfully  drawn^  and  full  of 
devotional  spirit. 

The  most  eminent  pupil  of  Joanes  was  Nicolas  Borras  (b. 
Cocentayna,  1530,  d.  1610).  His  chief  works  were  altar-pieces, 
and  numerous  pictures  for  the  Jeronymite  Monastery  of  Gandia, 
of  whose  Order  he  became  a member  in  1576.  Two  of  his 
subjects  were  a Last  Supper,  and  the  Dead  Saviour  in  the  arms 
of  the  Eternal  Father.  A great  number  of  his  pictures  are  in 
the  Museum  of  Valencia.  Borras’s  style  resembled  that  of  his 
master,  but  his  outlines  were  hard,  and  his  colouring  colder. 

Cristobal  Llorens  was  in  repute  near  Valencia  towards  the 
end  of  the  sixteenth  century.  It  is  uncertain  whether  his  History 
of  St.  Mary  Magdalene,  and  his  St.  Sebastian,  painted  for  the 
Conventual  Church  of  San  Miguel  de  los  Peyes,  still  exist. 


SCHOOL  OF  ARAGON. 

In  the  painters  of  the  School  of  Aragon  belonging  to  this 
period  the  Italian  influence  is  as  marked  as  elsewhere.  Paul 
Esquarte  and  Pol  an  do  Mois  accompanied  the  Duke  of 
Villahermosa  from  Italy  to  Saragossa  in  1580,  and  their  work 
for  the  Duke’s  palace  and  the  churches  of  that  city  gave  a good 
example  to  native  talent.  Esquarte  painted  portraits,  Mois 


38 


SPANISH  ART. 


historic  pictures.  A pupil  of  the  former,  Antonio  Galceran, 
executed  some  historical  pictures  for  the  Cathedral  of  Barhastro. 

Lupicino,  of  Blorence,  exercised  much  influence  on  native 
painters  by  his  pictures  for  the  great  altar  of  the  Convent  of  St. 
Augustine,  which  are  correct  in  drawing,  and  good  in  colouring. 
His  example  stimulated  Geronimo  de  Mora,  a native  of  Sara- 
gossa, painter  and  poet,  to  go  to  the  Escurial  for  the  purpose 
of  studying  under  Federico  Zuccaro. 

Don  Luis  Pascual  Gaudin  (b.  155G,  Yillafranca,  Catalonia, 
d.  1621),  may  be  included  here,  though  his  chief  work  was  for 
the  Chartreuse  of  Seville. 

Antony  Horfelin,  son  of  a Frenchman,  who  had  settled  at 
Saragossa,  was  born  in  that  city  in  1597,  and  after  studying  at 
Pome  with  success,  executed  many  works  for  the  churches  of 
his  native  city. 

A brief  mention  may  be  made  of  Pedro  Pablo  and  Serafin, 
both  Greeks,  who  painted  the  doors  of  the  great  organ  in  the 
Cathedral  of  Tarragona;  Isaac  Hermes,  who  in  1587  painted 
some  pictures  for  the  high  altar  of  the  same  cathedral ; and 
Pedro  Guitart  who  in  1576  executed  six  paintings  for  the 
high  altar  of  San  Pedro,  at  Pens.  ' 

The  close  of  the  sixteenth  century,  which  was  almost  coincident 
with  the  death  of  Philip  II.,  forms  an  epoch  of  no  mean  glory  in 
Spanish  Art.  JSTo  subsequent  time  could  show  such  a cluster  of 
great  masters  as  were  tlien  cotemporary  in  all  the  schools. 
Fostered  in  the  great  centres  by  Church  and  Court,  Art  also  found 
a welcome  in  the  country-seats  of  the  nobility,  and  by  their  help 
spread  into  the  provinces.  Still  all  this  progress  had  been  due 
to  an  impulse  from  without,  and  was,  as  it  were,  a mere  pre- 
paration for  the  change  that  was  now  to  take  place.  As  in 
Flanders  Italian  influence  was  arrested  by  the  native  vigour  of 
Pubens,  so  in  Spain  it  dwindled  before  the  independent  genius 
of  Zurbaran,  Velazquez,  and  Murillo.  These  great  names  will 
next  claim  our  attention. 


CHAPTEK  III. 


THE  GREAT  EPOCH  OF  SPANISH  PAINTING. 


(1600—1682.) 


HE  birtli  of  Velazquez  was  almost  coincident  witli  the 


opening  of  the  seventeenth  century.  The  death  of  Murillo 
took  place  in  1684.  Within  this  period,  Avhich  witnessed  the 
political  decline  of  Spain,  was  produced  all  that  was  most 
splendid  in  her  Art— the  works  of  those  artists  who  were  great 
at  once  hy  force  of  genius  and  nationality  of  sentiment.  Among 
these  the  names  of  Velazquez  and  Murillo  stand  out  prominent, 
hut  those  of  Zurharan  and  Cano  are  well  worthy  to  rank  beside 
them.  Each  of  these  great  masters  will  be  treated  of  under  the 
school  to  which  he  belongs. 


In  Castile  few  of  the  immediate  cotemporaries  of  Velazquez, 
even  considered  apart  from  him,  were  of  much  note,  but  some 
who  had  flourished  under  Philip  II.  were  still  living  to  contri- 
bute by  their  fame  to  the  splendid  “ era  of  Velazquez.”  Of  these 
the  foremost  was  the  Florentine  Vincencio  Carducho,  who 
had  accompanied  his  brother  Bartolomeo  to  Spain  in  1585,  and 


SCHOOL  OF  CASTILE. 


40 


SPANISH  ART. 


been  made  painter  to  Philip  III.  in  1609.  Though  he  was 
eclipsed  by  Velazquez,  his  high  fame  is  vindicated  by  his  works, 
the  best  of  which  were  the  fifty-four  pictures  for  the  Chartreuse 
of  Paular,  now  in  the  Madrid  Museum.  The  style  of  Carducho 
was  marked  by  vigour,  invention,  and  richness  of  colouring 
besides  showing  great  skill  in  anatomy.  His  draperies  were  as 
grand  as  those  of  Zurbaran,  and  his  Madonnas  were  famed  for  their 
pensive  and  delicate  beauty.  He  died  in  1638.  The  manner 
of  Carducho  was  imitated  by  his  pupil,  Pedro  de  Obregon, 
(b.  Madrid,  1597).  Another  pupil  of  good  promise  was 
pRANcisco  Fernandez  (1605  — 1646),  who  painted  the  portraits 
of  the  Kings  of  Spain  for  the  Alcazar. 

Eugenio  Caxes,  son  of  that  Patricio  Caxes,  who  had  been  in 
the  service  of  Philip  II.,  was  born  at  Madrid  in  1577,  and  worked 
much,  till  his  death  in  1642,  for  the  Court,  and  the  churches  of 
Madrid.  He  gained  considerable  reputation  as  a draughtsman 
and  colourist,  and  his  powers  are  fairly  exhibited  in  his  picture 
representing  the  English  attack  on  Cadiz,  now  in  the  Madrid 
Gallery.  An  artist  who  had  studied  under  the  elder  Caxes 
painted  exactly  in  the  style  of  the  son.  This  was  Antonio 
Lanohares  (d.  1658),  whose  pictures,  painted  for  various  con- 
vents, have  mostly  perished.  A second  pupil  of  the  same  master, 
Bartolome  Gonzalez,  also  acquired  a style  of  colouring  that 
was  held  brilliant  in  Castile,  and  in  1617  contested  successfully 
wdth  Poelas  for  the  post  of  Court  painter.  Eugenio  himself  also 
trained  a good  scholar  to  his  own  style  in  Luis  Fernandez,  who 
worked  in  oil  and  fresco  for  the  churches  of  Madrid  till  1654, 
and  who  must  not  be  confounded  with  that  Sevilian  artist  who 
was  the  master  of  Herrera  and  Pacheco. 

Toledo  claims  two  great  artists  of  this  time,  whose  pencils  were 
inspired  by  the  cloister  rather  than  the  Court.  The  first  was  the 
Carthusian  monk,  Juan  Sanchez  Cotan  (1561 — 1627),  a pupil 
of  Bias  del  Prado,  and  one  of  the  best  painters  of  Spain.  He 
painted  many  Virgins  and  Passions  for  the  Chartreuse  of 


SCHOOL  OF  CASTILE. 


41 


Paular,  but  liis  best  work  was  the  pictures  on  the  Life  of  St. 
Bruno,  painted  between  1615 — 1617  for  the  Chartreuse  of 
Granada.  A Cnieifixion  by  him  was  so  well  painted  that  the 
birds,  it  was  said,  would  try  to  perch  on  the  Cross.  The  second 


St.  FiiANCis  RECEIVING  THE  Stigmata.  By  Fray  Juan  Rizi. 

In  the  Madrid  Gallery. 

artist,  to  be  noticed  as‘‘  the  last  great  pencil  of  Toledo,”  and  one  of 
the  masters  who  influenced  Velazquez,  was  El  Greco’s  favourite 
pupil,  Luis  Tristan  (1586 — 1640),  who  equalled  his  master 
while  avoiding  his  faults.  Tristan’s  best  works  were  his 


42 


SPANISH  ART. 


altar-pieces  for  tlie  church  of  Yepes.  His  portrait  of  Bernardo 
de  Sandoval,  Archbishop  of  Toledo,  unites  the  elaborate  execii- 
tion  of  Coello  with  the  spirit  of  Titian. 

Another  pupil,  who  ably  carried  on  the  methods  of  E’l  Greco, 
was  Juan  Bautista  Mayno  (1569 — -1649),  who  worked  for  the 
Chapter  of  Toledo,  and  became  a Dominican  monk.  It  was  he 
who  introduced  Alonso  Cano  to  the  notice  of  Philip  lY.,  and 
whose  advice  was  much  sought  by  that  monarch.  The  Madrid 
Gallery  has  an  allegorical  picture  by  Mayno,  representing  the 
recovery  of  a heretic  Blemish  province  by  Philip  lY.,  in  which 
the  heads  are  well  painted,  but  the  attitudes  constrained,  and  the 
colouring  somewhat  sober. 

Juan  Eizi,  tlie  son  of  Antonio  Eizi  of  Bologna,  and  a pupil 
of  Mayno,  was  born  at  Madrid  in  1595,  and  becoming  a Bene- 
dictine monk,  painted  for  many  religious  houses,  his  best  works, 
such  as  the  Baptism  of  our  Lord,  being  those  executed  for  the 
convent  of  his  Order  at  Burgos.  His  only  picture  in  the  Madrid 
Gallery  is  St.  Francis  of  Assisi  receiving  the  Stigmata  ; the  figures 
are  life  size.  Juan  died  at  Monte-Casino  in  1675.  His  style, 
though  wanting  in  finish,  was  simple,  natural,  and  pleasing. 
Yery  different  was  that  of  his  brother,  Francisco  Eizi  (1608 — 
1685),  a pupil  of  Yincencio  Carducho,  who  held  the  post  of 
painter  to  the  king  under  Philip  lY.  and  Charles  II.  Largely 
employed  at  Buenretiro,  and  other  royal  palaces,  his  facile  but 
inaccurate  style  was  followed  by  many,  and  contributed  much  to 
the  debasement  of  Art. 

Diego  Eodriquez  de  Silva  y Yelazquez  was  born  at 
Seville  in  1599.  After  receiving  a good  education,  he  studied 
painting  at  first  in  the  school  of  tlie  elder  Herrera,  but  soon 
leaving  that  rough  master,  found  a gentler,  if  less  able,  instructor 
in  Pacheco,  whose  daughter  Juana  he  afterwards  married.  At 
the  house  of  this  learned  artist  Yelazquez  mixed  freely  in  the 
best  and  most  refined  society  of  Seville,  and  varied  his  labours 
in  the  studio  by  studying  anatomy  in  the  writings  of  Albrecht 


■3. 


Ec: 


\ 


The  Coitxt-duke  pe  Oliyaees.  By  Yelazqeez.  \_See  iKigc  43. 

In  the  Madrid  Gallery.  (No.  1096.) 


-'"v 


\ 


- •( 


■ 


SCHOOL  OF  CASTILE. 


43 


Diirer,  or  by  reading  poetry,  for  which  he  had  a great  taste. 
From  the  first,  the  bent  of  his  genius  unequivocally  declared 
itself.  He  once  said  that  he  would  rather  be  the  first  of  vulgar 
painters  than  the  second  of  refined  ones,  and  to  this  sentiment 
he  remained  true.  He  took  Hature  unadorned  for  his  guide,  and 
followed  her  with  unswerving  fidelity.  Yet  the  simple  reality, 
as  he  conceived  it,  becomes  invested  naturally  with  such  nobility 
that  it  never  appears  commonplace.  And  this  gives  his  work 
its  unique  impress  of  distinction. 

Velazquez  at  first  acquired  facility  by  painting  Bodegones,'^ 
and  used  also  to  keep  an  apprentice,  a peasant  boy,  whom  he 
sketched  in  various  attitudes,  thus  laying  the  foundation  of  his 
certainty  in  portraits.  His  earliest  style  was  much  influenced 
by  some  foreign  pictures  which  he  saw  at  Seville,  and  by  Spanish 
artists  of  other  schools  who  came  to  that  city.  He  thus  profited 
by  the  Venetian  colouring  of  Luis  Tristan,  and  was  also  attracted 
by  the  bold  style  of  Caravaggio  and  Ribera.  Two  pictures  of  this 
period  attest  the  influence  of  the  latter  master.  The  Adoration 
of  the  Shepherds  is  coarse,  but  powerfully  executed.  The  Watey'- 
Carriers  of  Seville  shows  wonderful  force  and  truth  to  Hature, 
and  already  gives  promise  of  future  excellence.  In  1622,  having 
made  a short  visit  to  Madrid  for  purposes  of  study,  Velazquez 
had  been  well  received  by  Don  Juan  de  Fonseca.  In  the  follow- 
ing year,  at  the  invitation  of  this  rich  patron,  he  again  visited 
the  capital,  and  a portrait  which  he  executed  of  Fonseca  being 
shown  to  Philip  IV.,  the  fortunate  artist  found  Mmself  in  high 
favour  with  that  king  and  his  powerful  minister,  the  Count  Duke 
d’Olivares.  He  was  at  once  made  pintor  de  camera,  and  after 
painting  likenesses  of  the  king  and  many  members  of  the  royal 
family,  produced  in  1624  his  fine  picture  of  the  Behedores,  or 
Borrachos  (the  Topers),  which  represents  a rustic  Bacchus,  him- 
self vine-crowned,  and  investing  with  a similar  wreath  one  of  the 

* Literally  “tavern-pieces,”  a term  applied  to  pictures  representing 
eatables,  or  still  -life  generally. 


44 


SPANISH  ART. 


drunken  group  around  him.  The  technical  execution  of  this 
picture  is  only  surpassed  by  its  humour,  which  entitles  the  artist 
to  be  called  the  Hogarth  of  Spain.  In  1629  a picture  of  a 
very  different  kind  was  the  occasion  of  further  advancement 
for  Velazquez.  In  competition  with  Eugenio  Caxes,  Vincencio 
Carducho,  and  Angelo  Kardi,  he  painted  The  Expulsion  of  the 
Moors  hy  Philip  III.,  and  received  as  the  prize  the  post  of 
Gentleman  of  the  Chamber.  The  following  year  is  rendered 
interesting  by  his  friendship  with  Eubens,  then  on  his  second 
visit  to  Spain,  and  an  event  still  more  important  in  his  artistic 
career  occurred  in  1629,  when  he  received  permission  to  gratify 
the  wish  he  had  long  had  of  visiting  Eome.  Embarking  at 
Barcelona  with  the  Marquis  of  Spinola,  he  stayed  first  at  Venice, 
where  he  studied  chiefly  Tintoretto’s  Crucifixion,  and  proceeding 
afterwards  by  Ferrara  and  Bologna  to  Eome,  was  there  well 
received  by  Pope  Urban  VIII.,  who  offered  him  every  facility 
for  study.  The  two  pictures  which  Velazquez  now  painted  are 
especially  important,  as  showing  the  thorough  independence  of 
his  genius.  Fresh  from  the  study  of  Eaphael  and  Michel- 
angelo, he  yet  shows  hardly  a trace  of  their  style,  but  seems 
bent  on  freely  following  the  more  ordinary  forms  of  Nature.  -■  In 
the  Forye  of  Vulcan  much  skill  is  shown  in  anatomy,  and  there 
is  truth  and  character  in  the  pathetic  face  of  the  ngly,  brawny 
god,  and  his  attendant  Cyclops  ; but  the  figure  of  Apollo,  who 
has  come  to  tell  of  Venus’s  infidelity,  is  quite  commonplace. 
The  Garment  of  Joseph  shown  to  Jacob  displays  the  same 
peculiarities.  Anger  and  sorrow  conflict  in  the  face  of  Jacob  ; 
the  sons,  standing  sullenly  around,  are  repetitions  of  the 
Cyclops. 

During  a short  visit  which  he  made  in  1630  to  Naples, 
Velazquez  painted  the  portrait  of  the  Infanta  Maria,  Queen  of 
Hunyary,  and  made  the  friendship  of  Eibera.  The  following 
year  found  him  at  Madrid,  and  high  in  favour  as  before.  At 
this  time  he  painted  many  portraits ; among  others,  an  especially 


SCHOOL  OF  CASTILE. 


45 


life-like  one  of  Don  Adrian  Pulido  Pareja,  Admiral  of  the 
Fleet.  To  1639  belongs  the  noble  picture,  Christ  on  the  Cross, 
painted  for  the  convent  of  St.  Placido,  which  proves  that  although 
Velazquez  rarely  attempted  the  highest  flights,  he  possessed  the 
power  to  do  so  had  he  wished.  The  expression  of  agony  could 
not  be  rendered  with  greater  power ; the  anatomy  is  precise ; 
the  execution  of  the  details  perfect.  In  1643  occurred  the 
disgrace  of  Olivarez.  Velazquez,  however,  without  losing  the 
favour  of  the  king,  maintained  his  intercourse  with  his  former 
patron.  About  the  same  time  an  expedition  by  Philip  into 
Aragon  gave  the  artist  an  opportunity  of  studying  military 
scenes,  and  doubtless  helped  him  in  the  composition  of  his 
historic  masterpiece,  the  Surrender  of  Breda,  sometimes  called 
the  “ Picture  of  the  Lances,”  from  the  pikemei^n  the  background. 
In  this  picture  may  once  more  be  noticed  the  union  of  wonderful 
technical  execution  with  truth  of  expression,  the  dignified  view 
of  the  victor  Spinola  and  his  attendants  being  well  contrasted 
with  the  awkward  bearing  of  Justin  of  Nassau  and  his  Dutch 
soldiers. 

The  year  1648  again  found  Velazquez  on  his  travels,  this  time 
on  a mission  to  collect  pictures  and  statues  for  the  king. 
Stopping  for  a while  at  Venice,  Parma,  Naples,  and  other  cities, 
he  passed  at  length  to  Pome,  where  he  painted  the  glorious 
portrait  of  Innocent  X.,  and  those  of  many  of  the  cardinals. 
His  progress  in  Poman  society  was  a continued  ovation,  and  in 
1650  he  Avas  made  a member  of  the  Academy  of  St.  Luke. 
Shortly  after  his  return  to  Spain  in  the  folloAving  year  a more 
burdensome  honour  Avas  thrust  upon  him,  in  the  post  of  “ Apo- 
sentadf)r  Mayor,”  an  onerous  office,  the  duties  of  Avhich  left  him 
little  leisure  for  painting.  He  Avas  also  much  consulted  by  the 
king  on  state  ahiiirs.  In  these  later  years  he  painted  his 
AAmnderful  picture  of  Las  Mmihas  (Maids  of  Honour),  Avhich 
Luca  Giordano  called  The  Theology  of  Painting,”  and  Avhich  is 
often  held  to  be  the  artist’s  masterpiece.  It  represents  a room 


46 


SPANISH  ART. 


in  the  palace  hung  with  pictures  by  Eubens.  On  the  left  of  the 
picture  stands  the  artist  himself  before  his  easel ; iu  the  centre 
the  little  Infanta  Maria  is  just  taking  a cup  of  water  from  one  of 
her  youthful  attendants.  It  is  “a  chance  group,  fixed  by  magic 
for  all  time  on  the  canvas.’'  (^Stirling.)  The  picture  so  pleased 
the  king,  that  with  his  own  hand  he  painted  the  Cross  of  Santiago 
on  the  breast  of  the  artist.  This  was  the  last  great  work  of 
Velazquez.  In  1660  the  duties  of  his  office  called  him  from 
Madrid  to  prepare  lodgings  for  the  Court  on  occasion  of  the 
marriage  of  the  Infanta  Maria  Theresa  to  Louis  XIV.  The 
Court  met  at  the  Isle  of  Pheasants  on  the  5th  of  June,  and  on 
the  31st  of  July,  soon  after  returning  to  Madrid,  Velazquez  died 
of  fever,  and  was  buried  in  the  church  of  St.  Juan. 

Xo  cotemporary  artist  displayed  such  a wonderful  variety  of 
power  as  Velazquez.  He  attempted  every  branch  of  painting, 
and  he  succeeded  in  each.  The  most  characteristic  examples  of 
his  style  have  been  already  described.  A few  other  pictures 
may  yet  be  noticed.  The  Gallery  of  Madrid — where  nearly  the 
entire  work  of  the  artist  is  to  be  found — contains  about  sixty 
pictures,  of  which  four  only  are  sacred.  Besides  the  Christ 
Crucified,  a very  remarkable  one  is  Bt.  Paul,  the  Hermit,  and 
St.  Anthony  fed  Toy  a Raven  in  the  Desert,  in  which,  though  the 
colour  is  sober,  a lively  effect  is  produced.  The  Coronation  of 
the  Virgin  is  in  the  style  of  Correggio,  and  brighter  in  colour 
than  is  usual  with  the  artist.  Another  celebrated  picture.  Las 
Hilanderas  {the  Spinners),  well  illustrates  the  change  from  his 
first  hard  and  precise  style  to  his  later  and  softer  manner.  Mengs 
said  of  it  that  ‘‘  it  seemed  the  work  of  pure  thought  without 
hands.”  Of  Los  Borrachos  we  have  before  spoken.  El  Pre- 
tendiente  {place-hunter)  is  a good  example  of  his  numerous 
single-figure  pictures.  In  landscape,  a field  scarcely  touched  by 
Spanish  artists,  Velazquez  was  equally  great,  his  work  dis- 
playing the  richness  of  Titian,  and  the  breadth  and  picturesque- 
ness of  Claude  and  Salvator  Eosa.  Of  the  nine  at  Madrid 


SCHOOL  OF  CASTILE. 


47 


may  be  named  A Dark  Wood  at  Nightfall,  and  the  Arch 
of  Titus  at  Rome.  A View  of  the  Escurial  hy  Sunset  in 
the  Louvre  is  also  very  fine.  After  Spain,  England  perhaps 
possesses,  in  private  collections,  more  of  the  works  of  Velazquez 
than  any  other  country.  The  Boar  Hunt,  in  the  National 
Gallery,  is  remarkable  for  its  brilliant  execution,  masterly  hand- 
ling, and  the  historic  truth  of  its  figures.  The  National 
Gallery  also  possesses  a portrait  of  Philip  IV.,  acquired  at  the 
Hamilton  sale.  The  celebrated  Water-Carrier  is  at  Apsley 
House.  The  excellence  of  Velazquez  in  portraits  is  universally 
acknowledged.  They  stand  on  the  same  level  as  those  of 
Van  Dyck  or  Titian.  Ford  says  of  them — ‘‘  His  portraits  baffle 
description  and  praise  ; he  drew  the  minds  of  men ; they  live 
and  breathe,  and  are  ready  to  walk  out  of  their  frames.”  Of  the 
portraits  of  himself,  The  most  beautiful,”  says  Stirling,  “ is  that 
in  the  Breda  ; the  most  authentic,  that  in  the  Meninas.” 

Among  the  scholars  of  Velazquez,  a place  must  be  given  to  his 
half-caste  slave,  Juax  de  Pareja,  who,  on  receiving  his  freedom, 
stayed  with  his  master  and  worked  in  his  manner.  One  of 
his  most  important  paintings.  The  Ccdling  of  St.  Matthew,  in 
which  he  has  introduced  a portrait  of  his  master,  is  in  the 
Madrid  Gallery.  Pareja  excelled  in  portraits. 

Some  brilliant  pupils  were  produced  by  the  school  of  Pedro 
de  las  Cuevas  at  Madrid,  though  he  himself  died  in  1635, 
without  having  gained  the  coveted  post  of  painter  to  the  king. 
His  stepson,  Francisco  Camilo  (d.  1671),  painted  the  portraits 
of  the  Kings  of  Spain  for  Buenretiro,  and  some  sacred  pictures 
for  the  monasteries  of  IMadrid.  His  colouring  was  soft,  brilliant, 
and  agreeable.  Antonio  Arias  Fernandez  also  worked  at 
Buenretiro,  and  painted  a high-altar  for  the  Carmelites  at  Toledo 
when  only  fourteen.  His  fellow-pupil,  Antonio  Pereda  (1599 
— 1669),  also  displayed  much  precocity  by  painting  a Conception 
when  only  eighteen,  which  led  to  his  being  employed  at  Buen- 
retiro. In  the  Madrid  Gallery  is  a St.  Jerome  by  him,  finished 


The  Calling  of  St.  Matthew.  By  Juan  de  Pareja.  In  the  Madrid  Gallery. 


SCHOOL  OF  CASTILE. 


49 


with  great  care,  and  a finely  composed  picture  of  The  Virgin^ 
St.  John,  and  the  Discigjles  round  the  dead  body  of  the  Lord. 
In  richness  of  colouring  no  Castilian  painter  ever  surpassed 
Pereda.  A fourth  pupil  of  Cuevas,  Josef  Leonardo  (h,  Cala- 
tayud,  Aragon,  1616),  painted  a Surrender  of  Breda,  which  is 
well  coloured,  though  wanting  the  life  and  movement  of  Velaz- 
quez’s work  on  the  same  subject. 

Juan  Bautista  Martinez  del  Mazo  (d.  1687),  the  son-in- 
law,  and  perhaps  the  best  pupil,  of  Velazquez,  whom  he  succeeded 
as  Court  painter,  imitated  Tintoretto  and  Titian  as  well  as  his 
master.  He  painted  landscape  and  portraits.  There  are  sixteen 
examples  of  his  work  in  the  Madrid  Gallery : among  the  more 
important  is  a View  of  Saragossa,  in  which  it  is  said  Velazquez 
painted  the  numerous  figures  in  the  foreground.  Antonio  Pug  a 
painted  common  subjects  so  well  that  the_y  might  pass  for  the  early 
works  of  Velazquez  himself.  A Castilian  painter,  Avho  might 
have  'won  a high  rank  but  for  his  early  death,  was  Diego  de 
Polo,  who  was  born  at  Burgos  in  1620.  He  studied  at  the 
Escurial,  and  painted  a few  pictures,  which  won  the  admiration 
of  Velazquez. 

Among  painters  of  lesser  note,  Francisco  Collantes  (1599 
— 1656)  may  be  mentioned  as  one  of  the  few  Spaniards  who 
attempted  landscape,  and  Juan  de  Arellano  (1614 — 1676)  as 
a most  industrious  painter  of  Bodegones.  Benito  Manuel  de 
Aguero  (1626 — 1670),  a pupil  of  Martinez  del  Mazo,  painted 
many  battle-pieces  for  Buenretiro  and  Aranjuez;  and  Cristobal 
Garcia  Salmeran  (1603— 1666),  in  his  sacred  pictures,  imitated 
with  skill  and  adgour  the  style  of  his  master,  Pedro  Orrente. 

Several  foreigners,  both  Flemish  and  Italian,  visited  the 
Spanish  Court  about  this  time.  By  far  the  most  distinguished 
was  Eubens,  mEo,  with  another  Fleming,  Kasperde  Crayer, 
shared  with  Velazquez  the  honour  of  painting  Philip  lA^. 
AIichele  Colonna  and  Agostino  Metelli  had  attracted  the 
notice  of  AElazquez  when  he  was  travelling  in  Italy,  and  being 


SP 


E 


50 


SPANISH  ART. 


invited  by  him  to  Spain  in  1658,  painted  many  frescoes  at  the 
Alcazar  and  Buenretiro. 

SCHOOL  OF  ANDALUCIA. 

The  interest  of  the  School  of  Andalucia  centres  during 
this  period  in  Seville,  which  from  1600  to  1630  was  at  the 
height  of  its  glory  as  a metropolis  of  Art.  The  most  remark- 
able, up  to  his  time,  of  the  artists  who  studied  only  in  Anda- 
lucia was  Francisco  de  Herrera  (1576  — 1656),  called,  in 
distinction  from  his  son,  El  Yiejo  (the  elder).  He  was  the 
first  who  introduced  into  the  school  that  bold  and  vigorous  touch 
v/hich  was  to  characterize  Velazquez.  He  was  a man  of  violent 
temper,  and  quarrelled  with  his  pupils  and  his  own  children. 
Being  accused  of  coining,  Herrera  took  refuge  in  the  college  of 
St.  Hermenegild,  and  there  painted  the  picture  of  that  saint, 
which  is  now  in  the  Seville  Museum.  Grand  in  design,  and 
skilful  in  composition,  this  work  recalls  the  force  and  colour  of 
Eubens  without  his  coarseness.  The  Lad  Judgment,  another 
of  his  works,  still  hangs  in  the  church  of  St.  Bernardo.  Fran- 
cisco Herrera,  El  Mozo  (the  younger),  fled  from  his  father’s 
stern  temper  to  Italy,  where  he  painted  Bodegones  with  skill ; 
but  his  sacred  pictures,  painted  on  his  return  to  Seville,  are 
feeble  and  affected. 

The  works  of  Herrera’s  cotemporary,  Juan  de  las  Eoelas 
(1558 — 1625),  are  not  so  well  known  out  of  Spain  as  they 
deserve  to  be.  Eoelas  probably  studied  at  Venice,  and  after- 
wards held  a prebendal  stall  in  the  church  of  Olivares ; but  his 
best  works  were  executed  for  the  churches  of  Seville,  and  it  is 
there  only  that  he  can  be  appreciated.  His  noblest  picture  is 
the  Death  of  St.  Isidore,  in  the  parish  church  of  that  saint, 
which  is  remarkable  for  majesty  of  design,  depth  of  feeling,  and 
richness  of  colour.  St.  Santiago  destroying  the  Moors  in  the 
Battle  of  Clavijo,  in  Seville  Cathedral,  is  also  a grand  picture. 


]')Y  Dux  Juan  Bautista  ]\Iautixez  del  ]\1azo.  In  the  Madrid  Gallery. 


52 


SPANISH  ART. 


The  Martyrdom  of  St.  Andrew^  in  Seville  Museum,  is  Venetian 
in  colouring,  and  in  the  pictures  of  the  Nativity  and  the  Ador- 
ation, in  the  University,  the  angels  are  peculiarl}’"  beautiful. 
Eoelas,  the  painter  of  the  “ sleek  Jesuit,”  deserves,  independently 
of  his  merits,  to  be  remembered  as  the  master  of  Zurbaran. 
Another  of  his  best  pupils  was  Varela. 

Some  artists  now  to  be  named  owe  their  fame  almost  entirely 
to  the  illustrious  pupils  whom  they  taught.  The  name  of 
Francisco  Pacheco  (1571 — 1654)  is  well  Avorthy  of  record, 
both  in  this  and  other  respects.  Uot  only  Avas  he  the  teacher 
and  father-in-la Av  of  Velazquez,  Avhose  superior  merit  he  Avas 
proud  to  acknoAvleclge,  but  the  author  of  a learned  and  valuable 
‘ Treatise  on  Painting,’  and  Inspector  of  Sacred  Pictures  to  the 
Inquisition,  an  office  Avhich  gave  him  the  opportunity  of  apply- 
ing practically  the  principles  he  laid  doAvn  as  an  author.  As  an 
artist,  Pacheco  Avas  versatile  and  painstaking,  but  deficient  in 
vigour.  His  best  Avork  Avas  a Last  Judgment,  painted  in  1612 
for  the  nunnery  of  St.  Isabel,  at  SeAulle.  It  may  be  added,  as 
illustrating  a practice  not  uncommon  among  Spanish  painters 
even  of  distinction,  that  he  used  to  colour  the  statues  of  his 
friend  Montahes,  and  AAms  the  first  to  introduce  that  method  into 
Seville. 

JuxVN  DE  Castillo  (1584 — 1640),  who  with  his  brother 
Agustin  and  the  elder  Herrera  studied  under  Luis  Fernandez 
at  Seville,  is  only  remarkable  as  the  master  of  Murillo  and 
Alonso  Cano.  Of  the  six  great  pictures  painted  by  Juan,  now 
in  the  Seville  Museum,  the  Assumption  is  the  best,  the  figure  of 
the  Virgin  being  very  fine.  The  son  of  Agustin,  Antonio 
Castillo  (b.  Cordova,  1603),  obtained  notoriety  in  a less  envi- 
able Avay,  for  the  pictures  of  Murillo  so  filled  him  with  envy  that 
he  died  of  A=^exation  in  1667,  after  vainly  attempting  to  surpass 
them.  His  drawing  Avas  good,  but  his  colouring  dry  and  dis- 
agreeable. Besides  Cano  and  Murillo,  the  school  of  Castillo 
produced  a noteworthy  artist  in  Pedro  de  Moya  (b.  Granada, 


St.  Basil  Dictating  iiis  Docttjxk.  By  IIkuiitra,  the  elder. 
In  the  Louvre. 


54 


SPANISH  ART. 


1610^  d.  1666),  who,  having  taken  to  a soldier’s  life,  was  so 
struck  by  some  pictures  of  Yan  Dyck  that  he  sought  out  that 
master,  and  became  his  pupil  till  the  death  of  Yan  Dyck,  shortly 
afterwards,  in  England.  Moya,  on  his  return  to  Seville,  imi- 
tated Yan  Dyck  with  much  success,  and  it  is  said  that,  through 
him,  the  style  of  Murillo  was  influenced  by  the  great  Elemish 
portrait-painter. 

Erancisco  de  Zurbaran  was  born  at  Euente  de  Cantos, 
Estremadura,  in  1598.  He  received  his  first  instructions  from 
some  unknown  painter,  but  being  sent  soon  after  to  Juan  de 
Eoelas  at  Seville,  displayed  extraordinary  talent  and  industry. 
In  1625  he  produced  the  grand  allegoric  picture  which  was  his 
masterpiece,  and  one  of  the  noblest  works  ever  executed  by  a 
Spanish  artist.  Designed  as  a triple  altar-piece  for  the  College 
of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  it  represents  that  saint  ascending  to  join 
the  blessed  Trinity,  the  Yirgin,  St.  Paul,  and  others  in  heaven. 
Lower  down  sit  the  venerable  figures  of  the  four  Doctors  of  the 
Church.  On  the  right  kneels  the  Archbishop  Diego  de  Dega, 
on  the  left  the  Emperor  Charles  Y,  with  a train  of  ecclesiastics. 
Though  harsh  in  outline,  the  general  effect  of  the  picture  is 
grand,  and  the  colouring  rich.  The  heads  are  admirable  studies, 
and  the  atmospheric  depth  and  distance  are  indicated  with  great 
effect  in  the  street  view.  Zurbaran  was  an  admirable  painter 
of  the  Carthusian  monks.  Three  remarkable  works  on  this 
subject,  which  he  painted  originally  for  the  Chartreuse  of  Santa 
Maria  de  las  Cuevas,  are  now  in  the  Seville  Museum.  They 
represent  St.  Bruno  conversing  with  Pope  Urban  II.,  St.  Hugo 
visiting  a refectory  lohere  tlce  monks  are  unlawfully  feasting  on 
fesh-meat,  and  the  Virgin  extending  her  mantle  over  a group  of 
Carthusian  ivorthies.  Another  able  monkish  study  is  the  kneel- 
ing Eranciscan  in  the  Louvre.  Zurbaran’s  pictures  of  the  Yirgin 
are  rare,  but  he  painted  many  female  saints,  who  are  supposed 
to  represent  the  reigning  beauties  of  the  day.  Like  Murillo, 
Zurbaran  passed  nearly  all  his  life  in  his  native  province, 


SCHOOL  OF  ANDALUCIA. 


55 


painting  with  untiring  brilliancy  and  success  numerous  pictures 
for  the  churches  and  convents.  It  is  uncertain  when  he  went 
to  Madrid,  hut  before  the  age  of  thirty-five  he  was  painter  to  the 
king,  and  being  summoned  by  Velazquez  to  the  Court  in  1650, 
painted  ten  works  on  the  subject  of  the  Labours  of  Hercules  for 
the  palace  of  Buenretiro.  He  died  at  Madrid  in  1662. 

Zurharan  has  been  called  the  Spanish  Caravaggio,  whose 
broad  handling  and  strong  contrast  of  light  and  shade  he  loved 
to  imitate.  In  his  adherence  to  Nature  and  his  strict  nationality 
of  style,  he  stands  side  by  side  with  Velazquez  and  Murillo. 
Though  inferior  to  the  former  in  ease  and  truth,  and  to  the 
latter  in  the  contour  and  life-like  appearance  of  his  figures,  he 
equals  both  in  colouring,  and  his  tints,  though  sober,  have  some- 
times the  depth  and  hrilliancy  of  Kemhrandt.  {Stirling.)  He 
is  one  of  the  few  Spaniards  whose  works  are  to  he  found  in 
many  of  the  galleries  of  Europe.  The  Louvre  alone  professes  to 
have  ninety. 

Alonso  Cano  was  horn  in  1601  at  Granada,  and  studied  first 
at  Seville  under  Pacheco,  and  afterwards  with  Juan  de  Castillo, 
and  perhaps  the  elder  Herrera.  His  earliest  works  were  some 
pictures  for  the  Carthusians,  and  other  convents  and  churches  of 
Seville,  hut  in  1637,  having  wounded  a brother  artist  in  a duel, 
he  escaped  to  Madrid,  where  he  received  aid  from  Velazquez  and 
Olivarez,  and  again  began  to  work  for  convents  and  churches. 
Our  Lord  at  Calvary,  painted  for  the  church  of  St.  Gines,  shows 
great  skill  and  power,  and  a St.  Isidoro  which  he  executed  for 
the  church  of  Santa  Maria  was  so  admired  that  it  led  to  his 
being  made  painter  to  the  king.  In  1644,  being  suspected  of 
the  murder  of  his  wife,  he  took  refuge  for  a time  in  the  Char- 
treuse of  Portacoeli,  near  Valencia,  and  there  painted  many 
pictures ; hut  returning  not  long  after  to  IMadrid,  he  was  excul- 
pated after  a judicial  inquiry,  and  soon  became  as  busy  and  as 
popular  as  before.  In  1651  he  obtained  from  the  Crown  a stall 
as  minor  canon  at  Granada,  and  settling  in  that  city,  employed 


56 


SPANISH  ART. 


liimself  till  liis  death  in  1667  in  working  for  the  cathedrals 
and  churches. 

Of  Cano’s  pictures  in  the  Madrid  Gallery,  a fine  full-length  of 
the  Virgin  may  be  noticed.  In  the  Louvre  a Deposition  from 
the  Cross  is  one  of  his  best  works,  and  Balaam  and  his 
shows  the  artist’s  simplicity  and  natural  feeling.  A Virgin  of 
the  Rosary  in  Malaga  Cathedral  is  also  a fine  example  of  his 
powers,  and  in  one  of  his  latest  works — a beautiful  picture  of 
Our  Lady  of  Bethlehem,  in  Seville  Cathedral — may  he  seen  the 
extreme  care  with  which  this  painter  always  finished  the  hands 
and  feet.  The  portraits  of  Cano  are  few,  but  excellent.  Those 
of  Calderon  in  the  Louvre,  and  a rosy-faced  Monk  in  the 
I^ational  Museum  at  Madrid,  may  he  noticed. 

Alonso  Cano  was  one  of  the  greatest  of  the  artists  of  Anda- 
lucia.  He  has  been  called  the  Michelangelo  of  Spain,  but  he 
merits  the  name  rather  from  the  variety  of  his  powers  than  his 
style.  He  excelled  in  sculpture  and  architecture  as  well  as 
painting,  but  his  somewhat  stormy  character  is  not  reflected  in 
his  works,  which  throughout  exhibit  a singular  sweetness  free 
from  any  feebleness.  Although  he  was  never  in  Italy,  his  fine 
feeling  for  form,  and  the  natural  charm  and  simplicity  of  his  com- 
position, suggest  the  study  of  the  antique,  while  in  painting,  the 
richness  and  variety  of  his  colouring  could  hardly  be  surpassed. 

Bartolome  Esteban  Murillo  was  born  at  Seville  in  1617. 
He  first  studied  under  Juan  de  Castillo,  but  on  the  departure  of 
his  master  to  Cadiz,  remained  in  his  native  city,  painting  rough 
pictures  for  the  dealers  in  the  “ feria,”  or  market.  A Blessed 
Virgin,  now  in  the  Murillo  room  at  Seville  Museum,  belongs  to 
this  early  time.  It  is  feeble  in  colouring,  but  there  is  promise 
in  the  pose  of  the  heads.  It  was  now,  also,  that  he  imitated 
Zurbaran  and  Roelas,  whose  influence  is  visible  in  the  Virgin  and 
Joseph.  While  Murillo  was  thus  making  his  way  unassisted, 
the  return  of  his  fellow-pupil,  Pedro  de  Moya,  to  Seville  raised 
in  him  a longing  for  Italy,  and  in  1642  he  set  out  for  Madrid, 


SCHOOL  OF  ANDALUCIA. 


57 


with  the  intention  of  asking  help  and  advice  from  Velazquez 
himself.  This  was  the  turning  point  of  his  life.  Eeceived  with 
the  utmost  kindness  by  the  generous  Court  artist,  he  was  enabled 
to  study  in  the  Escurial  the  works  of  Titian,  Van  Dyck,  and 
Velazquez  himself.  The  experience  thus  gained  seems  to  have 
completely  satisfied  him,  for  the  idea  of  Italy  faded  from  his 
mind,  and  in  1645  he  returned  to  Seville  to  enter  on  an  un- 
interrupted career  of  work. 

The  name  of  Murillo  will  always  be  associated  Avith  the 
Eranciscan  monks  he  so  loved  to  paint.  The  first  Avorks  which 
brought  him  into  notice  Avere  the  pictures— since  burnt — ^Avhich 
he  painted  for  the  cloisters  of  that  brotherhood  in  Seville.  In 
these  Avas  exemplified  the  first  of  his  three  styles,  the  frio  (or 
cold),  in  Avhich  the  outline  Avas  hard,  and  the  tone  of  the  shadoAvs 
and  treatment  of  the  lights  imitative  of  Zurbaran,  or  Caravaggio. 
Borne  on  to  prosperity  by  the  success  of  these  pictures,  the 
artist  gradually  adopted  his  second  style,  the  calido  (or  Avarm), 
in  Avhich  a softer  outline  and  melloAver  colouring  are  apparent. 
His  earliest  Avork  in  this  manner  Avas  Our  Lady  of  the  Concep- 
tion, painted  in  1652  for  the  Brotherhood  of  the  True  Cross. 
Other  examples  are  ; The  Nativity  of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  and 
the  fine  St.  Leander  and  St.  Isidor,  both  painted  in  1665  for 
the  Chapter,  and  the  celebrated  St.  Anthony  of  Padua  receiving 
the  Infant  Christ,  painted  in  1656,  and  still  in  the  cathedral. 
The  latter  picture,  though  restored  in  1833,  still  shows  the 
splendour  of  the  original  colours.  In  1665  Murillo  painted  some 
pictures  for  the  church  of  Santa  Maria  la  Blanca,  Seville,  of 
Avhich  the  Last  Supper  alone  remains.  Einer  than  this,  hoAv- 
eA^er,  Avere  those  carried  oh  by  the  French,  tAvo  of  Avhich  arenoAv 
at  Madrid,  illustrating  the  legend  of  Our  Lad.y  of  the  Snow. 
The  Virgin  in  The  Dream  is  one  of  the  loA^eliest  of  Murillo’s 
Madonnas,  and  an  example  of  his  third  style,  the  vaporoso,  in 
Avhich  the  outlines  are  lost  in  the  light  and  shade,  as  they  are  in 
the  rounded  forms  of  Xature. 


58 


SPANISH  ART. 


Between  1660 — 1674,  Murillo  painted  for  the  Hospital  of 
the  Caridad  the  eleven  great  pictures  which  form  the  noblest 
work  of  his  life,  and  show  in  their  full  extent  the  variety  and 
power  of  his  genius,  Five  of  the  series  were  taken  by  Soult ; 
of  those  that  remain,  the  finest  are  : Moses  striking  the  rock,  the 
Miracle  of  the  Loaves  and  Fishes,  and  the  Charity  of  St.  Juan 
de  Dios.  In  the  first,  which  as  a composition  could  hardly  be 
surpassed,  the  noble  face  of  the  chief  figure  is  well  contrasted 
with  those  of  the  people  around  him,  who  think  only  of  quench- 
ing their  thirst.  Each  figure  is  a study.  In  the  second  the 
composition  is  unequal,  and  the  head  of  the  Saviour  inferior  to 
that  of  the  Moses.  The  third  picture,  which  represents  an 
angel  appearing  to  St.  Dios,  as  he  sinks  under  the  burden  of  a 
sick  man,  is  notable  for  its  powerful  colouring,  Of  the  five 
pictures  removed,  the  finest  is  St.  Elizaheth  of  Hungary  ivash- 
ing  the  feet  of  beggars,  now  at  Madrid.  The  management  of  the 
composition  and  the  lights,  the  brilliant  colouring,  and  the 
manual  skill  of  the  execution,  are  beyond  praise.  In  this 
masterpiece  all  the  excellencies  of  Murillo  are  combined.  The 
figure  of  St.  Elizabeth  shows  his  power  in  portraying  the  ideal ; 
the  beggars,  his  grasp  of  the  picturesque  reality  of  Nature. 
Equal  in  its  rich  colouring  to  the  St.  Elizaheth,  the  Pool  of 
Bethesda  contains,  in  the  head  of  the  Saviour,  the  finest  ideal  of 
manly  beauty  ever  painted  by  Murillo,  while  the  figure  of  the 
})aralytic  man  is  wonderful  as  a study  of  anatomy.  Of  the 
Return  of  the  Prodigal,  Wilkie  says — ‘Mt  seems  to  speak  the 
very  language  of  Scripture,  as  with  Eaphael  and  Eembrandt.”  It 
is  now  at  Stafford  House. 

The  Capuchin  Convent  at  Seville  was  also  rich  in  the 
works  of  Murillo.  The  immense  altar-piece  of  the  Porciuncula, 
now  in  the  National  Museum,  Madrid,  has  been  spoilt  by 
restoring.  It  represents  the  Saviour  and  Virgin  appearing  to  St. 
Francis,  while  lovely  cherubs  shower  red  and  white  roses  on 
his  head.  The  Guardian  Angel  is  now  in  Seville  Cathedral ; 


SCHOOL  OF  ANDALUCIA, 


59 


the  drapery  of  the  child,  whom  the  angel  leads  hy  the  hand, 
is  distinguished  hy  a transparency  of  texture  seldom  seen  in 


St.  F]LizAPETa  of  HrxoAiiY  wasttixo  thk  fff.t  of  ]5fggars. 

By  IMuritto.  In  the  Jfa'lrid  Gallery. 

S^panish  painting.  Seventeen  of  the  Capuchin  pictures  are  in 
the  Seville  iMuseum.  The  St.  Leauder  and  Sf.  Bonarentura 


60 


SPANISH  ART. 


are  remarkable  for  the  grand  disposition  of  the  drapery ; the 
St.  John  Baptist  in  the  Desert,  and  the  St.  Joseph  with  the 
Infant  Christ,  as  noble  studies  of  youthful  models.  The  Santa 
Justa  and  Rufina  are  the  fairest  ideals  of  those  saints  that 
Seville  possesses,  and  the  Virgin  in  the  Nativity  is  one  of 
Murillo’s  loveliest  ]\radonnas.  Tliere  are  also  two  Immaculate 
Conceptions,  both  representing  the  Virgin  in  the  bloom  of  girl- 
hood, the  finest  being  that  in  which  she  tramples  the  evil  one  in 
the  shape  of  a dragon  beneath  her  feet.  But  the  gem  of  the  col- 
lection is  the  Charity  of  St.  Thomas  of  Villanueva,  by  far  the 
best  of  the  numerous  portraits  of  that  saint  which  Murillo  ever 
painted.  St.  Thomas,  as  he  stands  pale  and  venerable,  relieving 
a lame  beggar  at  his  cathedral  door,  recalls  in  motive  and 
treatment  the  St.  Elizahdh. 

Unequal  to  the  pictures  in  the  Caridad  and  the  Capuchins 
were  those  which  Murillo  painted  in  1667-8  for  the  chapter- 
house  of  Seville  Cathedral.  The  most  interesting  is  a magnifi- 
cent dark-haired  Virgin  of  the  Conception.  Three  pictures  may 
also  be  mentioned  which  he  was  commissioned  by  his  friend,  the 
Canon  Justino  bleve,  to  paint  in  1678  for  the  Hospital  de  los 
Venerables.  These  were  an  Immaculate  Conception,  of  remark- 
able beauty  in  the  colouring,  a St.  Peter  weeping,  in  which  Eibera 
was  imitated  and  excelled,  and  a charming  Blessed  Virgin, 
reposing  on  the  clouds  with  the  Divine  babe  on  her  lap,  who  be- 
stows bread  on  three  aged  priests.  Murillo  executed  at  the  same 
time  a portrait  of  Neve,  finished  with  perfect  clearness  and  care. 

A fall  from  the  scaffolding,  which  occurred  while  he  was 
painting  the  high-altar  for  the  Capuchins  at  Cadiz,  put  a sudden 
close  to  the  busy  life  of  Murillo.  Obliged  to  return  to  Seville, 
he  gradually  grew  worse  ; and  flying  on  the  3rd  of  April,  1682, 
was  buried  in  the  church  of  Santa  Crnz,''^  beneath  Campana’s 
picture  of  the  Descent  from  the  Cross. 

As  a religious  painter,  IMurillo  ranks  second  only  to  the  great 

* The  church  has  since  been  pulled  down. 


Tin:  Immaculate  CoxcErnox.  By  Mueillo.  In  the  Louxrc, 


62 


SPANISH  ART. 


Italian  Masters,  and  it  is  astonishing  to  think  with  what  scanty 
means  he  achieved  such  a result.  He  drew  no  inspiration  from 
the  examples  of  pagan  art.  His  only  model  was  the  Spain  that 
he  saw  around  him,  and  the  method  by  which  he  gave  it  ex- 
pression was  purely  national.  He  has  been  called  the  painter  of 
the  Conception,  and  a grace  and  feeling  peculiarly  his  own 
always  appear  in  his  frequent  treatment  of  that  difficult  subject. 
His  Yirgin  is  sometimes  a fair-haired  child,  wdro  gazes  adoringly 
up  to  heaven ; sometimes  a dark-haired  woman,  who  bends  a 
pitying  look  upon  the  earth.  As  a painter  of  children,  he  is  the 
Spanish  Titian,  or  Rubens.  St.  John  loith  the  Lamb  and  the 
Good  SheiJierd  are  charming  examples.  In  landscape  Murillo 
is  second  only  to  Velazquez,  but  at  some  distance,  his  efforts  in 
this  line,  though  graceful  in  design,  wanting  colour  and  vivacity. 
His  portraits  are  few,  but  of  great  excellence.  That  of  Canon 
Neve  has  been  mentioned.  In  the  Louvre,  those  of  Don  Andres 
de  Andrade,  and  an  old  woman  called  the  Mother  of  Murillo,  are 
truthful  and  effective. 

The  great  storehouse  for  Murillo’s  pictures  is  Seville.  There 
are  also  some  very  fine  examples  at  Madrid.  The  Louvre  has 
about  thirty,  of  which  the  most  famous  is  a Conception  of  the 
Virgin ; in  England  there  are  many  scattered  about  in  private 
collections,  besides  some  in  the  National  Gallery,  and  in  the 
Dulwich  College  Gallery,  which  boasts  of  two  of  his  best  beggar 
subjects.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  mauy  of  the  so-called 
Murillos  dispersed  throughout  Europe,  especially  those  repre- 
senting ragged  beggar  boys,  were  the  works  of  his  pupils. 

Ignacio  de  Iriarte  (b.  Azcoitia,  1620 — d.  1685),  is  famous 
as  the  most  distinguished  landscape  painter  in  the  School  of 
Andalucia.  He  has  been  called  the  Spanish  Claude  Lorrain, 
but  his  rugged  glens  and  headlong  streams  recall  rather  the  style 
of  Salvator  Rosa.  Examples  of  his  work  may  be  seen  in  the 
Madrid  Gallery  and  the  Louvre.  Iriarte  sometimes  painted  the 
landscape  for  the  figures  of  Murillo. 


SCHOOL  OF  VALENCIA. 


63 


Juan  de  Zamorra,  wlio  was  living  at  Seville  as  late  as  1671, 
also  painted  landscapes,  but  in  a riemish  style.  Murillo,  like 
Velazquez,  had  a slave  who  turned  painter.  This  was  Sebastian 
Gomez  (d.  1682),  whose  works  show  something  of  the  rich 
colouring  of  his  master,  but  are  faulty  in  composition.  Fernando 
Marquez  Joya  (d.  1672)  was  another  who  copied  the  style  of 
Murillo  with  some  success.  Zurbaran,  too,  found  clever  imitators 
in  his  pupils,  Bernabe  de  Ayai,a,  and  the  brothers  Polancos. 
The  latter  painted  an  altar-piece  in  the  church  of  St.  Stephen  so 
Avell  that  it  was  thought  to  be  the  work  of  their  master. 
Cristobal  de  Vera,  Juan  Penaloso,  Zambrano,  and  Antonio 
de  Contreras,  were  all  pupils  of  Cespedes,  and  worked  with 
some  repute  at  Cordova  in  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century. 
Juan  de  Toledo  (b.  Lorca,  1610 — d.  1665)  was  an  excellent 
painter  of  battles,  and  Henrique  de  las  Marinas  (b.  Cadiz, 
1620 — d.  1680)  was  so  called  from  his  skill  in  sea-pieces. 

SCHOOL  OF  VALENCIA. 

In  Valencia  the  fame  of  the  school  was  maintained  by  some 
painters  worthy  of  being  the  successors  of  Joanes.  Among  them 
was  one  of  the  most  remarkable  artists  of  Spain,  Francisco 
PtiBALTA  (b.  about  1551,  at  Castellon  de  la  Plana — d.  1628). 
After  studying  Paphael  and  other  masters  in  Italy,  he  returned 
to  Spain,  and  having  married  the  daughter  of  his  former  master, 
soon  rose  to  high  fame  in  Valencia,  the  only  place  where  he  can 
be  really  studied.  The  College  of  Corpus  Christ!  forms  a kind 
of  IMuseum  of  his  works.  Here  may  be  seen  one  of  bis  master- 
pieces, painted  in  a style  between  Titian  and  Van  Dyck,  St. 
Vicente  de  Ferrer  visited  on  Ms  sick  bed  hy  the  Savmtr  and 
Saints.  Over  the  high-altar  is  a grand  Last  Supper,  and  above 
this  a Holy  Family,  in  which  the  child  is  painted  in  the 
style  of  Titian.  There  are  also  a superb  at  the  Column, 

painted  in  the  style  of  Sebastiano  del  Piombo,  and  a Christ  in 


- r,4 


SPANISH  ART. 


the  Garden  of  Olives.  His  pictures  are  also  to  be  found  at 
Madrid,  Saragossa,  and  Toledo,  and  Ford  thinks  that  to  him 
must  be  attributed  the  fine  altar-piece  in  the  Chapel  of  Magdalen 
College,  Oxford.  The  style  of  Eibalta  exhibits  a grandeur  and 
freedom  in  drawing,  a good  taste  in  composition,  and  a knowledge 
of  anatomy.  In  colouring  he  is  sometimes  admirable,  sometimes 
harsh.  The  manner  of  Eibalta  was  exactly  imitated  by  his  son 
Juan  de  Eibalta  (1597 — 1628),  to  whom  are  attributed  all  the 
Eibaltas  in  the  Madrid  Gallery.  His  Crucifixion,  in  the  convent 
of  St.  Miguel  de  los  Eeyes,  painted  when  he  was  only  eighteen, 
is  admirable.  He  died,  unfortunately,  quite  young,  “ leaving  a 
name  never  eclipsed,  and  a blank  never  filled  up  in  the  School 
of  Valencia.”  [Stirling.) 

Jacinto  Geronimo  de  Espinosa  (b.  Cocentayna,  1600 — d. 
1680)  was  the  pupil  of  his  father,  G.  Eodriguez  de  Espinosa, 
and  of  Francisco  Eibalta.  After  passing  some  time  in  Italy,  he 
settled  at  Valencia,  where  he,  too,  like  Eibalta,  must  be  studied. 
When  only  twenty-three  he  painted  his  Christ  of  the  Rescue,  and 
in  1638  eight  large  pictures  for  the  cloisters  of  the  Carmelite 
Convent.  The  Museum  of  Valencia  has  many  pictures  of  this 
pious  and  prolific  artist.  Some  of  them  are  little  inferior  to 
those  of  Eibalta,  to  which  they  bear  much  resemblance.  One  of 
the  finest  is  Christ  appearing  to  St.  Ignatius  Loyola.  Others 
are  the  Communion  of  Mary  Magdalen,  and  St.  Luis  Beltran 
on  his  hier.  Of  the  pictures  attributed  to  him  in  the  Louvre, 
the  Bearing  of  the  Cross  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable. 

Josef  de  Eibera  (or  Lo  Spagnoletto),  though  his  life  was 
spent  in  Italy,  belongs,  both  by  his  birth  and  his  peculiarly 
national  style,  to  the  painters  of  Spain.  It  seems  clearly 
established  that  he  was  born  at  Xativa,  in  Valencia,  in  1588,  and 
was  a pupil  of  Francisco  Eibalta,  but  very  early  found  his  way 
to  Eome,  where  he  studied  chiefly  the  congenial  style  of 
Caravaggio.  Driven  to  Xaj^les  through  a quarrel  with  Domeni- 
chino,  he  there  painted  a Flaying  of  St.  Bartholomew, 


The  Deposition  fhom  the  Ciioss.  By  Josef  he  Rireka. 
Ill  the  Carthusian  Convent  of  St.  Martino,  Maples, 


i 


66 


SPANISH  ART. 


whicli  led  to  his  being  made  painter  to  the  Viceroy,  and  the 
high  position  he  thus  won  was  maintained,  partly  hy  his  genius, 
partly  hy  his  shameless  intrigues  against  brother  artists,  till  his 
death  in  1656.  The  popularity  of  Eibera  was  not  confined  to 
Italy.  His  works  are  more  widely  diffused  throughout  Spain 
than  those  of  Velazquez  himself.  He  was,  in  fact,  the  ablest 
exponent  of  the  fiercer  and  more  brutal  side  of  the  Spanish 
character.  He  applied  his  great  skill  in  anatomy  to  depicting 
suffering  in  its  most  hideous  forms,  and  his  favourite  subject,  the 
Martyrdom  of  St.  Bartholomew,  serves  as  a general  type  for  all 
his  pictures.  There  are,  however,  some  exceptions.  His  Depo- 
sition from  the  Cross,  in  San  Martino,  at  Haples,  is  generally 
considered  to  be  his  masterpiece,  and  has  rarely  been  equalled 
by  any  painter.  In  the  Madrid  Gallery,  Jacoh  luatering  the 
-flock  of  Laban  shows  dignity  and  grace,  and  Jacob's  Dream 
expresses  repose  in  a wonderful  manner.  In  the  Louvre,  there 
is  an  Adoration  of  the  Shepherds,  in  which  the  Virgin  is  a model 
of  calm  and  stately  beauty.  Eibera  also  painted  portraits  with 
great  force  and  spirit. 

Pedro  Orrente,  a native  of  Murcia,  was  born  about  1560, 
and  died  at  Toledo  in  1644.  His  masterpiece  was  a grand  St 
Sebastian,  painted  at  Valencia,  where,  as  also  at  Madrid,  some 
of  his  works  are  to  be  seen.  He  has  been  called  the  Spanish 
Eassano,  from  his  numerous,  but  somewhat  monotonous,  cattle- 
pieces,  painted  in  the  manner  of  that  master.  Orrente  taught 
his  brilliant  colouring  to  Esteban  March  (d.  1660),  many  of 
whose  pictures  may  be  seen  in  the  Madrid  Gallery.  His  battle- 
pieces  are  vigorously  painted ; his  sacred  subjects  are  inferior. 
His  son,  Miguel  March  (1633 — 1670),  studied  at  Eome,  and 
returning  to  Valencia,  painted  battles  and  sacred  pictures 
in  the  style  of  his  father,  but  with  a feebler  execution. 
Another  pupil  and  imitator  of  Orrente  was  Pablo  Pontons, 
many  of  whose  works  are  in  the  Convent  of  Mercy,  Valencia. 


SCHOOL  OP  ARAGON. 


67 


SCHOOL  OF  ARAGON, 


The  only  painter  of  the  School  of  Aragon  at  this  time  who 
requires  mention  was  Jusbpe  Martinez,  who  was  horn  at 
Saragossa  in  1612,  and  studied  early  in  life  at  Eome.  In  1642, 
after  his  return  to  his  native  city,  he  was  made  painter  to  Philip 
lY.,  hut  rejecting  all  offers  to  settle  at  Court,  remained  and 
painted  chiefly  for  the  Cathedral  of  the  Sen,  wdiere  he  left  many 
good  pictures.  Martinez  also  wrote  a hook  on  painting,  which 
showed  great  knowledge  of  the  rules  of  his  art.  His  death  in 
1682  was  a severe  blow  to  the  School  of  Aragon. 


F 2 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  DECADENCE  OF  SPANISH  PAINTING, 

FROM  THE  DEATH  OF  MURILLO  TO  THE  END  OF  THE 
EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

URIjSTG  the  latter  years  of  Velazquez  and  Murillo,  the 


Spanish  School  of  Painting  had  stood  almost  unrivalled 
in  Europe,  but  from  the  death  of  the  latter  in  1682  it  entered 
upon  a slow  hut  sure  decay.  That  Art  still  received  some  feeble 
patronage  from  the  Court  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  a public 
School  of  Art  was  founded  by  Philip  V,  (1700 — 1746),  and 
afterwards  raised  to  a royal  institution  under  the  name  of  the 
Academy  of  St.  Eerdinand,  by  Ferdinand  VI.  (1746 — 1759). 
Moreover,  up  to  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  names  of 
painters  of  undoubted  merit  occur  in  all  the  schools ; but  their 
efforts  seemed  to  die  away  for  want  of  successors  to  carry  them 
on,  and  Spanish  painting  came  at  length  to  follow  the  shifting 
fashion  set  by  the  j^articular  foreign  artist  whose  influence 
chanced  at  the  time  to  be  in  the  ascendant. 


The  interest  of  this  period  of  decadence  centres  almost  v/holly 
at  Madrid,  which,  as  the  Court  and  Capital,  naturally  attracted  to 


SCHOOL  OF  CASTILE. 


SCHOOL  OF  CASTILE. 


69 


itself  whatever  talent  yet  remained.  Among  the  later  artists  of 
Castile  a high  place  is  due  to 

Don  Juan  Carreno  de  Miranda  (horn  at  Aviles,  in  the 
Asturias,  in  1614,  died  at  Madrid  in  1685),  who  was  aided 
by  Velazquez,  and  became  painter  to  Philip  IV.  and  Charles  II. 
He  painted  much  tor  the  churches  at  Madrid,  and  elsewhere ; 
his  Immaculate  Conceptions,  in  especial,  being  highly  esteemed. 
His  portraits  were  easy  and  life-like,  and  in  colouring  recall 
Van  Dyck.  There  are  sixteen  examples  in  the  Madrid  Gallery, 
two  of  which  are  of  Charles  II. 

With  Claudio  Coello  (b.  Madrid,  about  1630 — 40),  the 
line  of  the  greater  artists  of  Castile  may  almost  be  said  to  close. 
He  at  first  imitated  the  style  of  his  master,  Prancisco  Eizi,  but 
being  aided  by  his  friend  Carreno  to  study  in  the  Alcazar,  he 
greatly  improved  himself  by  a study  of  Titian.  Coello  subse- 
quently became  painter  to  Charles  II.,  and  supreme  in  all  matters 
relating  to  Art.  His  best  work  was  a picture  forming  the  screen 
of  the  Santa  Forma, in  the  Escurial,  which  had  been  left 
unfinished  by  Francisco  Pizi.  This  picture,  which  represents 
Charles  II.  and  his  Court  receiving  the  sacredotal  benediction  at 
the  dedication  of  the  altar,  contains  fifty  portraits,  and  is  exe- 
cuted with  great  power  and  splendour.  The  works  of  Coello, 
many  of  wEich  were  executed  for  churches,  were  finished  with 
the  most  careful  labour.  His  oil  paintings  are  better  than  his 
frescoes,  and  “ combine  much  of  the  graceful  drawing  of  Cano 
with  the  rich  tones  of  Murillo  and  the  magical  effect  of  Velaz- 
quez.” {Stirling.)  The  death  of  this  artist  in  1693  was  said  to 
be  due  to  envy  of  Luca  Giordano,  a FTeapolitan  artist,  whose 
arrival  in  Madrid  the  preceding  year  inaugurated  the  downfall 
of  Spanish  Art.  The  faults  of  this  artist  were  the  more  perni- 
cious that  they  sprang  from  qualities  which  might  have  made 
him  great.  His  fertility  of  invention  and  rich  colouring,  his 

* The  Santa  Forma  was  a miraculous  Holy  Wafer,  exhibited  for  ador- 
ation at  stated  intervals. 


Charles  II.  of  Spain.  By  Don  Juan  Carreno  de  Miranda. 
In  the  Madrid  Gallery. 


SCHOOL  OF  CASTILE. 


71 


grandeur  of  conception  and  freedom  of  execution,  were  all  rendered 
useless  by  bis  love  of  glare  and  glitter,  and  that  furious  haste 
which  earned  him  the  name  of  Luca  fa  presto.  This  dashing 
style  pleased  while  it  corrupted  the  artists  of  Spain,  already, 
from  the  difficulties  thrown  in  the  way  of  studying  the  nude, 
too  much  disposed  to  careless  and  inaccurate  drawing.  The 
Battle  of  St.  Quintin,  on  the  Escurial  staircase,  is  a type  of  all 
the  work  of  Giordano.  After  being  caressed  by  Charles  II.  and 
Philip  Y.,  and  filling  churches  and  palaces  with  countless  pictures 
and  frescoes,  he  returned  to  ISTaples,  and  died  there  in  1705. 

One  of  the  best  pupils  of  Carreno  was  Mateo  de  Cerezo 
(1635 — 1675),  who  worked  at  Burgos,  Yalladolid,  and  Madrid, 
where  his  favourite  subject,  the  Virgin  of  the  Conception,  was 
in  great  request.  His  best  work  was  the  Risen  Saviour  and  His 
Disciples  at  Emmaus,  painted  for  the  Eecolete  Friars.  The 
work  of  this  able  painter  shows  the  chaste  richness  of  colour  and 
roundness  of  form  characteristic  of  Murillo.  Sebastian  Munoz 
(1654 — 1690)  studied  in  Eome  under  Carlo  Marratti,  and  was 
also  a pupil  of  Coello,  whom  he  assisted  in  his  work  at  Sara- 
gossa. In  1688  he  was  made  painter  to  the  king,  and  executed 
many  works  for  the  palaces  and  churches  of  Madrid.  His 
Martyrdom  of  St.  Sebastian,  now  in  the  Madrid  Gallery,  a 
picture  of  rich  and  splendid  colouring,  is  the  last  work  of 
first-rate  merit  which  the  School  of  Castile  produced. 

With  the  reign  of  the  Bourbons  a French  influence  becomes 
apparent  at  the  Spanish  Court,  and  is  marked  by  such  names  as 
Jean  Eanc,  painter  to  Philip  II.  in  1724,  and  Louis  Michel 
Yanloo,  who  succeeded  to  that  post  in  1736.  They  were 
followed  in  1761  by  the  Saxon,  Anton  Eaphael  Mengs,  a 
painter  meet  to  rule  over  the  second-rate  artists  of  Castile.  His 
was  the  very  genius  of  mediocrity,  and  his  correct  and  insipid 
pencil  was  long  employed  in  producing  an  endless  series  of 
jnctures  for  Charles  III.  His  portraits,  however,  must  be 
excepted,  as  being  life-like  and  well  coloured.  Mengs  finally 


72 


SPANISH  ART. 


died  at  Eome  in  1779.  Of  his  mediocre  Castilian  cotempor- 
aries, whose  ranks  furnished  painters  to  the  king,  or  directors 
to  the  Academy  of  St.  Ferdinand,  scarcely  any  deserve  notice. 
The  best,  perhaps,  was  Antonio  Gonzalez  Velazquez  (1729 — ■ 
1798),  who  painted  frescoes  for  the  new  palace,*  and  some  of 
the  churches  of  Madrid.  At  Badajos  Alonso  Mures  (1700 — 
1761)  painted  for  the  Franciscan  and  other  convents  many 
pictures,  which  were  designed  and  coloured  with  grace,  and 
composed  with  spirit. 


SCHOOL  OF  ANDALUCIA. 

In  this  school  the  interest  of  this  decaying  time  centres  in 
those  artists  who  had  caught  some  of  the  inspiration  of  Murillo, 
or  who  in  any  way  carried  on  his  work.  Some  independent 
genius  was  shown  by  Juan  de  Values  Leal  (b.  Cordova,  1630 
— d.  1691).  The  life  of  this  artist  was  embittered  by  jealousy 
of  Murillo,  whom  he  was  nevertheless  induced  to  help  in  found- 
ing the  Academy  of  Seville,  in  1660.  Valdes  was  the  last  of 
the  better  artists  of  Andalucia,  though  his  style,  unequalled  for 
invention  and  taste  in  drawing  and  colouring,  was  marred  by 
hasty  execution.  His  best  picture  was  the  Virgin  bestowing  the 
Chasuble  on  St.  Ildefonso,  in  Seville  Cathedral.  The  Caridad, 
also,  has  many  of  his  works.  It  was  one  of  these,  representing 
a crowned  corpse  lying  amidst  the  mocking  emblems  of  worldly 
splendour,  that  called  forth  the  remark  of  Murillo  : “ That  is 
something  to  be  looked  at  with  the  nostrils  closed.” 

Pedro  Munez  de  Villavicencio  (1635 — 1700),  in  whose 
arms  Murillo  died,  was  a successful  imitator  of  his  great  master, 
whose  “ ragged  urchins  ’’  he  chiefly  copied.  He  also  painted 
portraits  with  vigour  and  fidelity.  Francisco  Meneses  Osorio 
(d.  1700),  Esteban  Marquez  (d.  1720),  and  Alonso  Miguel 

* The  new  palace  had  been  built  to  replace  the  Alcazar,  burnt,  with  all 
the  art  treasures  collected  by  Velazquez,  in  1734. 


SCHOOL  OF  ANDALUCIA. 


73 


DE  Tobar  (1678 — 1758),  were  also  successful  imitators  of 
Murillo.  The  last  indeed  copied  the  style  of  his  master  too 
closely  for  his  own  fame.  Our  Lady  of  Consolation,  in  Seville 
Cathedral,  and  the  Divine  Shepherdess  in  the  Madrid  Gallery, 
are  his  best  works.  The  Divine  Shepherdess,  was  also  a favourite 
subject  with  Bernardo  German  Llorente  (1685 — 1757),  whose 
pictures  were  sometimes  taken  for  productions  of  Murillo. 

Josef  Eisneno  (d.  1721),  painter  and  sculptor,  worked  at 
Granada,  and  may  he  named  as  one  of  several  pupils  who  imi- 
tated Cano  with  success.  At  Granada,  too,  worked  Juan  de 
Sevilla  Eomero  y Escalante  (1627 — 1695),  a pupil  of  Pedro 
de  Moya.  The  colouring  of  Escalante  was  rich  and  forcible, 
and  his  influence  might  have  arrested  the  decay  of  painting,  had 
he  not  refused  to  take  pupils. 

The  roll  of  Andalucian  artists  may  he  fitly  closed  by  two 
names,  to  whom  every  historian  of  Spanish  painting  must  stand 
indebted.  To  the  earlier  part  of  this  period  belongs  Acisclo 
Antonio  Palomino  de  Castro  y Yelasco  (b.  Bujalance,  1653 — 
d.  1725),  who,  as  painter  to  Charles  II.,  assisted  Coello  and 
Giordano,  and  also  executed  many^works  at  Valencia,  Salamanca, 
and  Granada.  But  he  is  famous,  not  for  his  feeble  pictures,  but 
the  work  on  painting  which  gave  him  the  name  of  the  Vasari  of 
Spain.  The  last  and  most  interesting  part  of  this  treatise  con- 
tains the  lives  of  Spanish  painters  and  sculptors.  Inaccurate  as 
a historian.  Palomino  yet  interests  by  the  numerous  anecdotes 
he  has  handed  down.  At  a later  date  lived  Juan  Agustin  Cean 
Bermudez  (1749 — 1829),  who  assisted  in  founding  the  Academy 
of  Seville,  and  studied  for  a time  under  Mengs  at  Madrid. 
Bermudez,  like  Palomino,  owes  his  fame  to  his  writings,  but  is 
unlike  his  predecessor  in  being  accurate,  clear,  and  concise. 
These  qualities  distinguish  his  great  work,  the  ‘Dictionary  of 
the  Pine  Arts’  in  Spain,  which,  published  in  1800,  before  the 
ravages  of  the  French  war,  constitutes  the  best  authority  on 
Spanish  Art. 


74 


SPANISH  yiRT. 


SCHOOL  OF  VALENCIA. 

Valencia  presents,  in  this  declining  period,  an  array  of  mediocre 
painters,  some  of  whom  show  talent,  hut  few  any  marked  indi- 
viduality. Juan  Conchillos  Falc6  (1641 — 1711),  was  a pupil 
of  Herrera,  and  studied  at  the  Galleries  of  Madrid.  Of  his  works 
for  various  religious  houses  in  Valencia,  the  best  was  a beautiful 
Immaculate  Conception  for  the  Franciscan  nuns.  Louis  lb 
Sotomayor»(1635 — 1673)  was  another  painter  of  sacred  pictures, 
and  noted  for  his  fine  colouring. 

Murcia,  which  in  Art  may  be  reckoned  as  a province  of 
Valencia,  produced  two  artists  who  deserved  to  have  lived  in 
a better  time.  The  first  of  these  was  Hicolas  de  Villacis 
(d.  1690),  who  had  worked  under  Velazquez,  and  studied  in 
Italy.  Being  rich,  he  painted  chiefly  for  his  friends,  but  he 
executed  a few  pictures  of  saints  for  the  Dominican  Convent, 
and  some  frescoes  for  the  Convent  of  the  Holy  Trinity  in  Murcia. 
The  second  w^as  Mateo  Gil  arte  (1648 — 1700),  a native  of 
Valencia,  who  settled  in  Murcia.  His  best  -work  v/as  a large 
picture  for  the  Convent  of  Mercy,  containing  thirty-six  figures, 
and  representing  the  Miracle  of  the  Loaves  and  Fishes.  A pupil 
both  of  Villacis  and  Gilarte,  Josef  Garcia  Hidalgo  (1656 — 
1711),  painted  sacred  pictures  with  great  success  in  Valencia, 
after  having  studied  at  Borne.  He  often  assisted  Carreho,  and 
was  made  censor  of  pictures  and  painter  to  Philip  IV.  Almost 
the  last  of  the  great  artists  of  Valencia  was  Sbnen  Vila,  who, 
from  1678  to  1708,  painted  for  the  churches  and  convents  of 
Murcia.  The  church  of  St.  Isabel  contains  his  best  works. 
He  was  a pupil  of  Esteban  March,  and  besides  drawing  and 
composing  well,  possessed  a good  knowledge  of  anatomy. 

Like  Castile  and  Andalucia,  Valencia,  in  her  decline,  was  not 
without  an  institution  designed,  though  vainly,  by  its  promoters 
to  encourage  Art.  This  was  the  Academy  of  San  Carlos,  founded 


SCHOOL  OF  ARAGON. 


75 


by  Charles  III.,  and  chiefly  through,  the  efforts  of  Josef  de 
Yergara  (1726  — 1799).  The  works  of  this  prolific  artist 
abound  in  nearly  every  town  on  the  east  coast  of  Spain,  but 
they  are  totally  uninteresting.  The  same  remark  applies  to 
those  of  Mariano  Salvador  Maella  (1739 — 1819),  who  de- 
serves to  be  mentioned  as  a representative  of  painting  in  its 
worst  days.  This  ‘‘feeble  reflection  of  Mengs”  was  painter 
in  ordinary  to  the  king,  aud  director  of  the  Academy  of  St. 
Ferdinand. 


SCHOOL  OF  ARAGON. 

Aragon,  in  the  first  part  of  this  period,  produced,  as  usual, 
few  painters  of  distinction.  Joaquin  Juncosa,  a Carthusian  of 
Scala  Dei,  born  near  Tarragona  in  1631,  painted  for  his  own 
and  other  convents  many  works  correct  in  drawing,  and  forcible 
and  brilliant  in  colour.  He  died  in  1708  at  Home,  which  he 
had  once  before  visited.  Geronimo  Secano  (1638 — 1710)  and 
Bartolome  Vicente  (1640 — 1700)  both  painted  in  oil  and 
fresco  for  the  churches  of  Saragossa. 

To  Barcelona  belongs  the  glory  of  having  produced  Antonio 
A'^iladomat,  who  was  born  there  in  1678,  and  whose  pictures 
are  to  be  seen  in  the  cathedral  and  many  of  the  churches.  He 
was  justly  called  by  klengs  the  first  Spanish  painter  of  the  day, 
and  Ford  says  of  him,  that  “ The  last  ray  of  Murillo  lighted  on 
his  palette.”  Besides  sacred  pictures,  he  painted  landscapes  of 
considerable  beauty,  and  was  also  successful  in  portraits.  In 
all  his  works  there  is  exhibited  a grasp  of  mind,  and  a knowledge 
of  the  principles  of  composition,  drawing,  and  colouring,  which 
are  the  more  remarkable  as  he  owed  everything  to  himself,  for 
he  had  never  been  abroad  or  studied  under  a good  master.  He 
died  in  1755.  Saragossa,  again,  produced  a painter  of  merit  in 
Josef  Luxan  Martinez  (1710 — 1785),  who,  after  studying  the 
works  of  the  best  Italian  masters  at  Haples,  settled  in  his  native 


76 


SPANISH  ART. 


city,  and  executed  many  works,  which  were  correct  in  drawing 
and  agreeable  in  colouring.  But  his  chief  claim  to  remembrance 
rests  on  his  efforts  to  maintain  in  Saragossa  the  School  of  Design, 
which  was  afterwards  promoted  to  an  Academy  by  Charles  lY. 

Martinez  left  several  pupils.  Of  Brancisco  Bayeu  (d.  1795), 
it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  he  imitated  Mengs,  and  naturally 
became  painter  to  the  king,  and  director  of  the  Academy  of  St. 
Berdinand.  Another  pupil  of  far  greater  power  was 

Brancisco  Goya  y Lucientes  (b.  Buente  de  Todos,  Aragon, 
in  1746),  who  studied  at  Borne,  and  afterwards  became  Court 
painter  under  Charles  lY.  and  Berdinand  YII.  Gifted  with 
extraordinary  originality  and  imagination,  Goya  must  not  be 
judged  by  his  sacred  pictures,  which  are  either  feeble  or  coarse. 
His  portraits  are  of  far  greater  merit,  though  some  of  them,  like 
his  sacred  subjects,  show  the  influence  of  David.  He  also 
painted  episodes  in  the  Brench  invasion  of  Madrid  in  1808,  and 
scenes  in  the  Bull-fights.  But  the  full  force  of  his  fantastic 
genius  was  poured  forth  in  the  numerous  sketches,  prints,  and 
etchings  in  which,  with  the  humour  of  a Hogarth  and  the  coarse- 
ness of  a Swift,  he  satirized  the  church  or  society.  Of  Goya  it 
has  been  justly  remarked  that  he  was  far  more  national  in 
style  than  many  other  Spanish  painters  of  greater  eminence, 
and,  in  his  degree,  as  representative  as  Yelazquez.  The  last 
years  of  the  artist  were  spent  at  Bordeaux,  where  he  died 
in  1828. 

Y^ith  the  death  of  Goya,  shortly  after  the  close  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  all  native  genius  and  originality  seemed  to  have  died 
out  from  the  Spanish  School  of  Painting.  It  was  indeed  roused 
to  a fictitious  enthusiasm  by  the  example  of  the  Brench  painter, 
David  (d.  1825) ; but  this  revival  rested  on  a purely  servile 
imitation,  which  exaggerated  the  defects  while  it  overlooked  the 
excellences  of  the  master,  and  led  to  no  independent  efforts  on 
the  part  of  the  scholars.  Towards  the  middle  of  this  century, 
however,  the  long  slumber  was  broken,  and  the  line  of  Spanish 


Tni:  Death  of  the  Picador.  P>y  Francisco  Goya  y'  Lucientes. 

In  the  Lcforl  Collection. 


78 


SPANISH  ART. 


painters  restored  by  tbe  advent  of  Fortuny,  wbo,  during  bis  short 
life,  achieved  a European  reputation. 

Mariano  Fortuny  was  born  at  Eeus,  in  Catalonia,  in  1838. 
He  went  early  to  Rome,  but  he  was  as  well  known  at  Paris  and 
Madrid,  and  gained  a yet  wider  artistic  experience  in  Morocco, 
whither  he  accompanied  General  Prim  and  the  Spanish  army  in 
1859.  A large  picture  of  the  Battle  of  Tetuan  remained  un- 
finished at  his  death ; but  he  was  best  known  for  his  smaller 
genre  pictures,  which,  by  their  originality,  colouring,  and  dramatic 
force,  gave  him  a unique  position  among  modern  artists.  His 
style  was  much  influenced  by  the  study  of  his  own  countryman, 
Goya,  and  of  Meissonier.  The  career  of  this  great  and  versatile 
artist  was  cut  short  by  fever  in  1874. 

Of  the  contemporaries  and  successors  of  Fortuny  it  is  not 
necessary  to  speak  here.  Their  productions,  which  betray  the 
influence  of  the  modern  French  School,  are  for  the  most  part 
confined  to  genre  pictures,  brilliant  and  amusing  tours  de  force, 
sure  of  popularity,  but  devoid  of  high  and  enduring  qualities. 
The  activity,  however,  thus  displayed,  is  at  least  an  indication 
that  Spain  has  shaken  off  her  old  sloth,  and  may  yet,  in  the 
artistic  epoch  now  opening,  once  more  have  a School  of  Painting 
of  her  own. 


PORTUGUESE  PAINTERS. 


St.  Petek  IN  Pontifical  Robes.  ByYelasco.  Li  Viscu  Cathedral.  \_Sce;page^h. 


//.iiUlni  f\r- 


PAINTING  IN  PORTUGAL. 


HE  history  of  Portuguese  Painting  has  still  to  he  written, 


although  the  proved  existence  of  abundant  materials,  and 
the  interest  lately  aroused  on  the  subject,  make  it  probable  that 
this  will  not  long  be  the  case.  Here,  not  so  much  a sketch,  as 
an  indication  of  what  has  already  been  accomplished  in  this 
direction,  can  alone  be  attempted. 

Certain  very  marked  characteristics,  which  distinguish  it  from 
all  others,  warrant  us  in  speaking  of  a Portuguese  School  of 
Painting ; which,  in  its  brief  bloom  and  long  decadence,  reflects 
in  a marked  degree  the  vicissitudes  of  the  national  history.  Like 
the  Schools  of  Spain  and  Prance,  it  is,  in  its  origin,  of  wholly 
derivative  growth.  Its  originality  consists  in  the  strong  workings 
of  the  native  genius  under  the  foreign  influences  by  which  it  was 
moulded.  These  influences  were  perhaps  more  varied  in  the 
case  of  Portugal  than  in  that  of  any  other  country.  There  were 
first  those  Flemish,  German,  and  Italian  tendencies  by  which  it 
was  affected  in  common  with  Spain.  Another  disturbing  current 
was  introduced  into  Portugal  through  her  contact  with  the  East, 
which  contributed  to  the  mother  country  not  only  great  Avealth, 
but  peculiar  artistic  types.  Lastly,  the  spirit  engendered  by  the 
SP  G 


82 


PORTUGUESE  PAINTING. 


conquests  of  her  kings,  and  the  discoveries  of  her  navigators, 
gave  a quickening  impulse  to  the  genius  of  her  greatest  artists, 
and  inspired  them  with  a national  ideal.  The  result  of  all  this 
was  that  combined  originality  and  rich  confusion  of  style  which 
form  the  prevailing  feature  in  Portuguese  Painting. 

Three  periods  may  be  roughly  distinguished  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  Portuguese  School.  An  early  epoch  of  unformed 
and  uncertain  efforts ; a second  and  culminating  epoch  of 
splendid  achievement,  covering  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  and 
beginning  of  the  sixteenth  centuries ; and  a third  period  of 
decadence,  which  has  lasted  almost  down  to  the  present  day. 

In  the  earliest  period  such  Art  as  there  was  in  Portugal 
flourished  under  the  kings ; hut  though  many  names  of  painters 
occur  in  the  archives,  even  so  far  back  as  the  reign  of  Denis 
(1279),  all  that  can  with  any  certainty  be  affirmed  of  them  is  that 
there  was  nothing  important  or  distinctive  about  their  work. 
The  first  real  Portuguese  painters  were  the  illuminadores  (illu- 
minators), who  were  famous  throughout  Europe  from  the  first, 
and  retained  their  reputation  on  into  the  great  era  of  painting, 
a strong  Flemish  tendency  being  observable  in  their  later  work. 
The  Chronicle  of  John  /.,  in  the  National  Library  of  Madrid,  is 
a fine  example  of  about  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century.  The 
colouring  is  harmonious,  but  sober.  Later,  we  find  Garcia  de 
Eezende  (b.  about  1470)  illuminating  much  for  John  II.,  under 
whom  he  held  the  office  of  Chronicler.  Garcia  tells  us  in  his 
^ Memoirs  ’ that  in  his  time  “ painters  and  illuminators  were  at 
the  height  of  their  glory.”  Alvarus,  who  illuminated  the 
Books  of  Reform  of  Emmanuel  the  Great,  was  another  noted 
name.  Important  also  was  Antonio  de  Holanda  (d.  after 
1549),  who  flourished  under  Emmanuel  and  John  III.  Besides 
being  famed  throughout  Europe  as  an  illuminator,  he  was  the 
first,  according  to  his  son,  “ to  invent  and  introduce  into  Portu- 
gal a harmonious  style  of  painting  in  black  and  white,  superior 
to  all  the  processes  known  in  the  other  countries  of  the  world.” 


PORTUGUESE  PAINTING. 


83 


It  was  this  Holanda  of  whom  the  Emperor  Charles  Y.  said  that 
he  had  painted  his  portrait  better  even  than  Titian. 

The  name  of  Holanda  belongs  to  the  second  period,,  and  we 
must  go  back  a little  to  trace  the  beginning  of  painting  in  its 
larger  sense.  The  originating  impulse  came  solely  from  without, 
and  was  very  gradual,  though  very  certain,  in  its  development. 
Portugal  was  closely  connected  by  its  sea-commerce  with 
Flanders,  and  was  affected  in  the  first  place  and  most  distinctly 
by  Flemish  Art.  This  is  evidenced  by  the  continual  occurrence 
of  such  names  as  Juan  Flamenco,  Juan  de  Borgona,  and  the  like. 
The  first  important  step  in  this  direction  was  the  visit  of  Yan 
Eyck  to  Lisbon,  in  1428,  to  paint  Isabel,  the  daughter  of  John  I. 
Yan  Eyck’s  influence  was  marked  and  lasting,  and  from  his  time 
to  well  into  the  sixteenth  century  Portugal  was  invaded  by 
Flemish  artists,  and  sent  her  own  students  to  learn  from  Flemish 
masters  in  Flanders.  Damian  de  Goes,  the  friend  of  Durer,  had 
a special  commission  from  Emmanuel  to  procure  specimens  of 
Flemish,  German,  and  Dutch  Art  for  the  Court  of  Lisbon.  The 
same  king,  about  1520,  sent  native  artists  to  Italy,  and  summoned 
Italians  to  his  Court.  The  Italian  influence,  however,  was  at  its 
height  later,  towards  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century.  After 
Flanders,  Germany,  owing  to  her  close  political  connection  with 
Portugal,  exercised  the  most  important  influence.  Holbein  was 
among  the  artists  who  visited  Lisbon. 

The  second  period,  which  was  developed  from  the  fusion  of 
all  the  above  influences,  and  to  which  belongs  all  that  is  most 
memorable  in  Portuguese  Painting,  may  be  roughly  computed  as 
lasting  from  1480  to  1550,  and  covering  the  reigns  of  John  II., 
Emmanuel,  and  John  III.,  but  its  most  brilliant  results  are  almost 
coincident  with  the  reign  of  Emmanuel  (1495 — 1521),  a period 
cotemporary  Avith  that  of  the  great  outburst  of  Art  in  Spain 
under  Ferdinand  and  Isabella.  ToAvards  the  close  of  the  fifteenth 
century,  Portugal  Avas  first  in  a position  to  avail  herself  to  good 
purpose  of  her  foreign  models,  and  to  contribute,  on  her  own  side, 

G 2 


84 


PORTUGUESE  PAINTING. 


native  genius  and  national  aims.  By  that  time  she  had  achieved 
her  conquests  in  Africa,  made  settlements  in  the  East,  and 
become  one  of  the  foremost  maritime  nations  in  Europe.  The 
voyages  of  Yasco  de  Gama  and  the  discovery  of  Brazil  were  not 
merely  events  in  the  national  history,  hut  directly  stimulated  the 
imagination  of  artists.  In  the  period  under  review,  Lisbon  and 
its  Court  were  the  resort  of  visitors  or  envoys  from  the  Old  and 
E"ew  "Worlds.  If  was  in  the  midst  of  this  medley  of  foreign 
artistic  traditions,  ETew  World  ideas,  and  the  feeling. of  national 
ascendancy,  that  Portuguese  Painting  arose,  and  to  which  it  owes 
that  rich  confusion  of  style  already  alluded  to. 

In  Portugal,  as  in  Spain,  Art  made  its  first  efforts  in  the 
service  of  religion.  Paintings  were  in  request  to  adorn  the 
churches  and  monasteries  which  gradually  arose  as  the  Moors 
were  driven  out.  Many  such  were  built  in  the  reign  of  John 
II.,  but  still  greater  progress  was  made  under  Emmanuel,  in 
whose  time  flourished  the  famous  architect,  Boytaca,  and  who 
gave  his  own  name  to  the  so-called  Emmanuelesqiie  style  of 
architecture. 

In  spite,  however,  of  the  undoubted  brilliancy  of  painting  at 
this  epoch,  and  the  evidence  of  pictures  belonging  to  it  still 
extant,  the  most  singular  obscurity  prevails  as  to  the  artists 
themselves.  A School  of  Lisbon,  and  a School  of  Yiseu  have 
been  distinguished.  The  identity  of  the  masters  who  constituted 
the  former  is  for  the  most  part  lost  in  the  names  of  particular 
pictures  supposed  to  be  by  them,  or  that  of  the  particular  place 
in  which  they  worked.  Hardly  less  obscurity  shrouds  the  latter. 
They  were  long  assigned  by  tradition  to  a single  great  artist, 
named  Gran  Yasco,  who  holds  the  same  mythical  position  in 
regard  to  Portuguese  Painting,  as  Yan  Eyck  to  that  of  Elanders, 
and  Gallegos  to  that  of  Spain — all  early  Portuguese  paintings 
marked  by  the  older  Elemish  style  being  attributed  promiscuously 
to  him.  The  confusion  is  increased  by  the  fact  that  Yasco  is  a 
common  Portuguese  name,  and  was  borne  by  several  well-authen- 


PORTUGUESE  PAINTING. 


85 


ticated  artists.  One,  for  instance,  is  known  as  tlie  miniature 
painter  of  Alphonso  Y.,  in  1455,  and  a second,  to  be  mentioned 
presently,  painted  at  Yiseu. 

The  question  has  to  some  extent  been  cleared  up  by  an  English 
critic.^  His  investigations  may  be  taken  to  have  proved  the 
fact  that  a great  artist  named  Yasco  really  existed,  but  that  all 
we  can  actually  assign  to  him  is  a single  picture  t bearing  his 
signature,  which  points  to  “ a great  artist,  who  worked  mainly 
during  the  first  quarter  of  the  sixteenth  century.”  The  pictures, 
on  the  other  hand,  commonly  ascribed  to  Yasco,  were  really  by 
his  great  cotemporaries,  and  “ show  the  existence  of  a jSTational 
School  of  Art  in  the  sixteenth  century.” 

The  painters  of  the  School  of  Yiseu  may  thus  be  given  con- 
jecturally  as  follows  : 

A painter,  name  unknown,  wdio  must  have  worked  about 
1500 — 1520.  By  him  were  the  fourteen  pictures  in  the  Chapter 
House  of  Yiseu  Cathedral  on  the  Life  and  Passion  of  Christ, 
which  probably  formed  a retablo.  Portuguese  in  character,  they 
belong  in  technique  to  the  older  Flemish  style. 

Yelasco  (painted  about  1520 — 1540).  To  him  are  ascribed  : 
(1)  The  Calvary  forming  the  altar-piece  of  the  Capella  de  Jesus, 
in  Yiseu  Cathedral  (once  attributed  to  Yasco).  (2)  The  pictures 
in  the  Sacristy,  including  tho  St.  Peter  (also  once  supposed  to  be 
Yasco’s).  “ St.  Peter,  clad  in  Pontifical  robes,  and  seated  on  a 
throne,  is  apparently  a typal  representation  and  impersonation- 
of  the  Catholic  church.”  (3)  A Pentecost,  at  Coimbra.  The 
style  of  Yelasco  is  marked  by  depth  of  dramatic  expression.  It 
recalls  that  of  Campana,  and  is  more  advanced  than  that  of  the 
painter  of  the  Chapter  House  pictures. 

* .1.  C.  Robinson.  Early  Portuguese  Art.  Ilis  criticisms  are  founded 
mainly  on  certain  pictures  in  the  Chapter  House  and  Sacristy  of  Viseu 
Cathedral . 

t This  picture  is  now  in  the  collection  of  the  Director  of  the  Academy 
of  Fine  Arts  at  Lisbon. 


8G 


PORTUGUESE  PAINTING. 


Yasco  Fernandez,  called  Gran  Yasco.  The  one  picture 
hearing  his  name  consists  of  three  panels,  apparently  forming 
the  divisions  of  an  altar-piece.  The  centre  represents  a 
Descent  from  the  Cross,  the  two  wings  respectively  St.  Francis 
in  Ecstacy,  with  fine  landscape  and  background,  and  St.  Anthony 
of  Lisbon  on  the  sea-shore,  preaching  to  the  fishes.  It  was  pro- 
bably painted  about  1520.  In  style  it  is  Italian  and  Flemish, 
and  occupies  a middle  place  in  the  Yiseu  School  between 
the  pictures  in  the  Chapter  House  and  those  in  the  Sacristy. 

Other  painters  of  the  Yiseu  School  are  : Francisco  Fernandez 
(living  in  1552),  and  Yasco  Fernandez,  his  son,  both  of  whom 
have  been  previously  confused  with  Gran  Yasco.  “ Ovia,”  the 
painter  of  the  Christ  shown  to  the  Multitude,  in  the  monastery 
of  Santa  Cruz  at  Coimbra  ; and  lastly,  the  painter  (name  un- 
known) of  the  St.  John  in  the  Lisbon  Academy. 

The  Flemish  influence — which  was  the  predominating  feature 
in  the  works  of  Gran  Yasco  and  his  cotemporaries — lasted  long, 
and  was  persisted  in  by  a certain  group  of  painters  down  to  the 
early  part  of  the  seventeenth  century.  Towards  the  end  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  however,  it  began  to  be  supplanted  generally 
by  the  influence  of  Italy.  Francisco  de  Holanda  (1517 — 
1584),  son  of  Antonio  de  Holanda,  and  himself  a painter,  though 
inferior  to  his  father,  had  been  sent  by  John  III.  to  Italy  to 
study  painting.  Here  he  remained  long,  and  became  the  friend 
of  Michelangelo.  It  was  with  the  return  of  Francisco  to 
Lisbon  in  1548  that  the  reaction  set  m.  He  disparaged  the 
efforts  of  the  native  Portuguese  School,  and  endeavoured  success- 
fully to  spread  among  his  countrymen  the  principles  of  the 
Italian  cinque-cento.  Among  the  numerous  Portuguese  artists 
who  went  to  Pome  to  study,  we  may  name  Antonio  (or  Em- 
manuel) Campello  {floruit  about  1540),  a historical  painter  in 
the  reign  of  John  III.,  who  was  said  to  recall  Michelangelo ; 
and  Gaspard  Diaz  {floruit  about  1534),  who  was  called  the 
Portuguese  Kaphael. 


CxiLVARY,  Altar-piece  by  Velasco. 
Ill  the  Capella  dc  Jesus,  Viscu  Cathedral. 


88 


PORTUGUESE  PAINTING. 


The  death-blow  of  Portuguese  Painting  came  with  the  down- 
fall of  the  national  greatness,  and  the  loss  of  national  prosperity. 
An  expedition  into  Africa,  undertaken  by  King  Sebastian,  ended 
in  disaster.  In  1578,  at  the  battle  of  Alcazar-kebir,  the  king 
himself  was  slain,  the  power  of  Portugal  destroyed,  and  the  way 
paved  for  the  Spanish  domination.  Prom  this  date  begins  the  third 
period,  during  which  the  history  of  Art  in  Portugal  is  one  merely 
of  long  decay.  Henceforth  the  influence  of  Italy,  which,  under 
John  III.,  had  produced  some  very  noble  results,  exercised  oidy 
a deteriorating  effect.  The  few  Portuguese  artists  who  worked 
on  took  their  examples  from  Eome,  but  with  few  exceptions 
were  content  with  a servile  imitation.  The  Inquisition,  which 
had  been  established  in  1526,  helped  still  further  to  restrict  the 
limits  of  painting,  and  confine  it  to  devotional  themes.  The 
political  domination  of  Spain  also  naturally  brought  some  in- 
fluence to  bear  upon  Art,  and  Sanchez  Coello  was  only  one  of 
numerous  Spanish  artists  who  found  their  way  to  Lisbon. 
During  the  eighteenth  century,  as  Art  still  continued  to  decline, 
the  French  style  of  the  day  became  in  vogue ; and  later  still, 
with  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  the  influence  of 
David  was  strongly  felt  in  Portugal. 

That  the  decline  was  due  to  external  conditions,  and  did  not 
result  from  the  want  of  individual  talent,  is  shown  by  a few 
names  that  stand  out  prominently  from  time  to  time.  Bento 
CuELHO  DA  SiLVEiRA  (d.  Very  old  in  1708)  was  a prolific  artist, 
most  of  whose  works  are  now  lost.  His  style  shows  in  turn  the 
three  manners  of  Tintoretto.  Gioseffo  d’Avellar  {floruit  about 
1640)  was  the  favourite  painter  of  John  lY.  One  of  his  princi- 
pal works  was  a series  of  seventy-two  large  pictures  on  the 
Life  of  Christ,  painted  between  1639 — 1648  for  the  ceiling 
of  the  church  of  the  Dos  Martyres.  These  are  now  replaced  by 
stucco. 

Emmanuel  de  Castro  was  a pupil  of  Claudio  Coello,  who, 
it  may  be  noted,  was  himself,  though  a Spanish  painter,  of 


PORTUGUESE  PAINTING. 


89 


Portuguese  parentage.  Castro  worked  much  in  Spain,  whither 
he  went  in  1698. 

Still  later,  three  Portuguese  painters  attained  a fame  that  may 
he  called  European,  and  proved  that  more  favourable  external 
conditions  were  alone  wanting  to  found  anew  the  School  of 
Portugal.  These  were  the  two  Vieras  and  Sequeira. 

Francisco  Viera  de  Mattos  (surnamed  Lusitano)  was  born  at 
Lisbon  in  1699,  and  studied  for  many  years  in  Pome.  His  works 
were  historical  and  religious,  and  in  style  followed  with  some 
success  the  models  of  the  best  Italian  time.  He  died  in  1783. 

Francisco  Viera  (surnamed  Portuense)  was  born  at  Oporto 
in  1765,  and  died  at  Madeira  in  1805.  Like  his  namesake,  he 
studied  much  in  Italy,  and  from  the  best  models,  but  his  style 
displays  far  less  energy,  and  was  marked  by  sweetness  and 
melancholy  rather  than  strength.  He  once  visited  England. 

A more  remarkable  artist  than  either  of  the  above  Avas 
Domenico  Antonio  Sequeira  (1768 — 1837).  With  much 

vigour  and  originality,  Sequeira  was  very  unequal.  His  style 
suffered  many  fluctuations,  and  betrays  the  bad  influence  of 
cotemporary  taste.  His  disgust  at  the  low  condition  of  Art  in 
his  time,  and  his  exaggerated  estimate  of  his  own  powers,  may 
also  have  helped  to  distract  his  artistic  aims.  One  of  his  most 
noted  pictures,  the  Death  of  Camoens,  was  painted  at  Paris  in 
1823.  His  latest  and  best  works  were  all  of  a religious  charac- 
ter ; but  though  painted  at  Pome,  show  resemblance  to  Pem- 
brandt  rather  than  the  Italians. 

To  these  names,  though  at  a long  distance,  we  may  add 
Joseph  d’ Almeida  Furtado  (surnamed  Gata)  (1778 — 1831), 
the  ‘‘  best  Portuguese  miniaturist  of  his  time,”  and  Cyrillo 
VoLKMAR  Machado  (1748 — 1823).  Cyrillo,  feeble  as  an  artist, 
deserves  some  slight  mention  as  the  Cean  Bermudez  of  Portugal. 
His  ‘ Memoirs,’  published  the  year  of  his  death,  give  many 
notices  of  Portuguese  artists  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  some 
of  their  earlier  predecessors. 


90 


PORTUGUESE  PAINTING. 


At  the  present  time  Portuguese  Art  shows  a distinct  tendency 
to  revive.  Many  living  artists  might  he  named  who  “ want  not 
talent,  hut  a public,”  in  order  to  form  a National  School.  The 
present  king,  Don  Luis,  is  a staunch  patron  of  Art,  and  the 
Retrospective  Exhibition  of  Spanish  and  Portuguese  Art,  held  at 
Lisbon  in  1882,  revealed  the  existence  in  Portugal  of  a wealth 
of  Art  treasures  hitherto  unsuspected.  Under  these  favourable 
external  conditions,  and  with  the  revived  interest  of  the  artistic 
world,  it  is  almost  certain  that  there  will  again  he  before  long  a 
Portuguese  School  of  Painting.  At  the  same  time  it  is  hardly 
less  certain  that  a close  investigation  among  the  archives,  and  in 
the  churches,  palaces,  and  museums,  will  throw  fuller  light  on 
the  history  of  Portuguese  Art,  and  lead  to  the  reconstruction 
of  national  traditions,  which  may  give  a direction  to  coming 
efforts. 


FRENCH  PAINTERS. 


■) 


/ 


w 


1 

' 


■ 


v-1 


J 

V " ;• 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


INTEODUCTIOIf. 


HE  Art  of  France,  like  her  Literature,  is  pervaded  by  a 


distinct  tendency  which  takes  its  rise  from  the  national 
temperament.  The  French  mind,  with  its  ready  tact  and  quick 
intelligence,  seems  to  hold  the  mean  among  the  nations  of  Europe. 
It  has  neither  the  poetry  nor  the  melancholy  of  the  Horth,  nor 
the  fervid  enthusiasm  of  the  South.  In  its  early  history  it  shows 
little  appreciation  for  simple  nature,  and  is  not  deeply  stirred 
by  the  sentiment  of  religion.  But  it  interests  itself  keenly  in 
all  that  concerns  the  thoughts  or  actions  of  men : and  while 
less  apt  to  originate  ideas,  it  is  quick  to  seize  on  those  of  others, 
to  formulate  them  with  precision,  and  to  disseminate  them  in 
a form  which  appeals  to  many.  This  love  of  clearness  and 
precision  has  its  corresponding  defects.  It  is  inimical  to 
imagination  and  originality,  and  condemns  the  too  free  play 
of  individual  fancy  as  eccentric. 

These  general  features  can  be  traced  running  clearly,  on  the 
whole,  through  the  French  School  of  Painting.  Its  artists  have 
the  “ seeing  eye,”  but  not  the  informing  imagination.  Eich  in  tact 
and  skill,  and  lavish  of  resource  in  that  clear  presentation  of  an 


94 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


idea,  which  depends  in  painting  on  what  is  called  composition, 
they  are  defective  in  colouring,  and  in  all  that  concerns  form  and 
method  dependent  on  foreign  models.  If  the  development  of 
a distinct  manner  be  taken  as  the  criterion  of  a school  of 
painting,  the  French  School  loses  its  identity.  Poussin  was  a 
Greek  ; Yalentin  imitated  Caravaggio ; Lesueur,  Raphael.  A 
host  of  mediocre  painters  took  for  their  own  the  eclectic  style 
of  the  Carracci.  Even  the  really  national  genius  of  Watteau 
sought  a medium  for  the  expression  of  its  grace  and  fancy  in 
the  touch  and  colouring  of  Flanders. 

The  limitations  of  its  ideal,  and  the  external  conditions  of  its 
development,  serve  to  explain  the  vein  of  paradox  which  runs 
through  French  painting.  The  very  qualities  which  make  it 
peculiarly  French  deny  it  the  breadth  and  largeness  of  character 
belonging  to  some  of  the  other  great  European  schools.  Its 
sensitiveness  to  every  breath  of  external  opinion,  while  it  banishes 
eccentricity,  fosters  conventionality ; its  strict  adherence  to  rule 
and  tradition  provokes  a reaction  to  the  opposite  extreme.  We 
continually  find  its  sobriety  and  sense  of  measure  passing  into 
theatrical  glitter  and  extravagance  ; its  grace,  skill,  and  precision, 
exchanged  for  incoherency  and  exaggeration ; its  fine  feeling 
for  form  diverted  to  grotesqueness,  or  indecency.  When,  as  in 
the  case  of  David,  it  makes  a serious  attempt  to  discard  shams 
and  affectations,  and  become  genuinely  great  and  original,  there 
is  a taint  of  spuriousness  about  the  effort. 

It  is  thus  that  French  painting  fascinates,  yet  disappoints ; 
that  it  pleases,  perhaps,  the  largest  general  public,  but  fails  to 
satisfy  the  more  exacting  criticism  of  the  few.  Ho  school  can 
present  a more  unbroken  tradition,  maintained  by  a continuous 
line  of  workers,  than  that  of  France ; it  can  show,  in  nearly 
every  epoch,  groups  of  artists  of  high  excellence,  but  hardly 
affords  a single  figure  who  can  take  unchallenged  rank  among 
the  greatest  painters  of  the  world.  Poussin  is  the  only  master 
who  combines  the  national  qualities  at  their  best  with  true 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE, 


95 


greatness  and  originality.  These  attributes  can  hardly  be 
claimed  by  David.  They  can  only  partially  apply  even  to 
such  men  as  Ingres  and  Delacroix. 

The  same  limitations  which  cramp  its  development,  make  the 
history  of  the  French  School,  considered  in  its  distinctively 
national  aspect,  really  a short  one.  It  takes  its  origin  directly 
from  Italian  models,  which  it  fails  properly  to  understand,  and 
is  overshadowed  from  the  beginning  by  the  exclusive  patronage 
of  the  French  monarchs.  From  the  time  that  she  possessed 
any  distinctive  school  at  all,  France  never  had  any  independent 
centres  of  Art ; no  rival  schools,  such  as  those  of  Italy,  or  Spain. 
All  art  activity  gravitated  to  Paris,  as  the  centre  of  life  and 
thought.  The  dreary  list  of  the  painters  of  Louis  XIV.  is 
succeeded  by  the  still  more  monotonous  one  of  the  painters  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  Only  with  that  century  does  French  painting 
become  really  national  with  Watteau — and  Watteau  is  distin- 
guished, not  by  greatness,  but  by  fancy  and  grace.  After  Watteau, 
a higher  effort  of  reform  is  initiated  by  David.  The  movement 
itself  is  futile,  but  it  prepares  the  way  for  a new  departure 
uncontemplated  by  itself.  Eomanticism  comes  to  infuse  an 
invigorating  breath  of  genuine  enthusiasm  into  painting,  and 
the  pagan  sentiment,  always  more  or  less  predominant  in  French 
Art,  is  modified  by  the  growth  of  an  influence  hitherto  strange 
to  it — a genuine  feeling  for  simple  nature.  The  development 
of  this  new  modern  spirit,  in  accordance  with  the  external 
conditions  of  the  time,  constitutes  the  latest  phase  of  French 
painting,  which  will  be  considered  in  its  place. 

Apart  from  its  artistic  importance,  the  French  School  has  an 
interest  of  a different  kind  attaching  to  it.  Something  of  the 
national  history  enters  more  or  less  into  every  great  school  of 
painting,  but  it  is  the  peculiarity  of  the  French  School,  that  it 
is  interpenetrated,  more  closely  and  continuously  than  any 
other,  with  the  fluctuating  pulse  of  the  national  life.  It  is 
essentially  of  the  world,  and  the  world  is  always  with  it.  It 


96 


PAINTING  IN  FEANCE. 


takes  the  very  “ form  and  pressure  ” of  contemporary  thought 
and  manners ; is  sensitive  to  every  changeful  emotion  of  the 
passing  hour.  The  decorative  compositions  of  Lebrun  express 
the  very  spirit  of  the  age  of  Louis  XIY.  Conversely,  the 
“ patriotism  ” of  the  Eevolution,  and  the  “glory”  of  the  Napo- 
leonic era,  take  fresh  glow  in  the  classical  themes  of  David,  and 
the  epic  battles  of  Gros ; and  in  this  latest  period,  the  realism 
of  a more  material  age  finds  its  counterpart  in  the  “ impression- 
ism ” of  painting.  At  whatever  point  we  compare  them,  French 
Art  and  French  history  are  found  to  mutually  illuminate  and 
interpret  one  another.  Viewed  in  this  light,  even  defects 
assume  importance.  French  painting  becomes  a mirror,  in 
which  are  brilliantly  reflected  the  successive  phases  of  the 
French  spirit. 


The  names  and  dates  of  the  Artists  are  given  as  in  the 
Notice  des  Tableaux  du  Musee  du  Louvre^'  par  F. 
Villot,  SecrHaire. 


CHAPTEE  I. 


EARLY  FRENCH  ART.  BEGINNING  OP  THE  ITALIAN  INFLUENCE. 
(1400—1650.) 

EO^I  the  time  when  Charlemagne  gathered  Byzantine 


artists  round  him  at  Aix-la-Chapelle,  to  the  dawn  of  the 
Eenaissance,  there  are  evidences  of  an  uninterrupted  Art  activity 
in  France ; hut  besides  that  the  interest  attaching  to  such  efforts 
is,  in  many  cases,  antiquarian  rather  than  artistic,  those  in 
which  the  germs  of  French  painting  can  be  traced  were  long 
in  assuming  any  national  character.  The  vestiges  of  the  mural 
paintings,  which  from  the  ninth  to  the  thirteenth  century 
covered  the  walls  of  church  or  abbey,  seem  at  first  sight  to 
open  up  a fruitful  field  of  inquiry,  but  a closer  examination 
shows  them  to  be  quite  disconnected  with  any  developruent  of 
later  Art.  They  were  not  the  result  of  a wide-spread  artistic 
enthusiasm  devoted  to  the  service  of  the  Church,  but  w^ere 
executed  at  the  bidding  of  particular  prelates,  and  to  symbolize 
the  formulas  of  a rigid  creed.  In  style  they  merely  continued 
Greek  or  Italian  traditions ; sometimes  among  their  stiff  archaic 
forms  there  even  appeared  incongruous  touches  of  the  classic 
manner,  but  nowhere  do  they  show  traces  of  a sentiment 
peculiarly  French. 

SP  H 


98 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


The  first  gleam  of  any  national  character  affecting  French 
art  appears  about  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century,  when  the 
rise  of  the  pointed  Gothic  architecture  drove  painting  from  the 
walls  to  the  windows.  Glass  painting  not  only  reached  its 
highest  perfection  in  France,  but  from  its  peculiar  style,  indi- 
cated far  more  surely  a future  School  of  Painting  than  the 
mural  frescoes.  Splendid  examples  of  these  “ pictures  on 
glass’'  are  afforded'  by  the  Cathedral  of  Chartres,  and  the 
Sainte  Chapelle  at  Paris.  Glass-painting  began  to  decline  in 
the  sixteenth  century,  and  later  on  we  shall  find  Jean  Cousin, 
one  of  the  earliest  French  artists,  passing  from  the  painting  of 
glass  to  paint  in  oil  on  canvas. 

The  same  influences  that  drove  painting  from  the  walls  of 
churches  turned  the  attention  of  artists  during  the  thirteenth 
and  fourteenth  centuries  to  such  subjects  as  retablos  and  altar- 
pieces.  But  these  so-called  artists  do  not  pre-suppose  an  im- 
proved school  of  painting.  In  fact,  before  the  fourteenth 
century,  painting  had  no  standing  as  a separate  art,  but  was 
strictly  subordinated  to  sculpture  or  architecture.  The  painter 
was  still  merely  a decorator,  who  assisted  in  the  embellishment 
of  church  furniture,  and  the  adornment  of  oratory  or  palace,  or 
contributed  to  the  decorations  of  royal  pageants.  Of  this 
character  were  the  paintings  of  Jean  Coste  and  Girard 
d’ Orleans,  who  worked  at  the  Chateau  of  Yandreuil  for 
Charles  Y.  Such  painting  as  stood  alone  was  typified  by  the 
work  of  Gringonneur,  who  painted  playing-cards  for  Charles 
YI.,  or  else  it  was  a development  of  the  branch  of  miniature. 
It  is  in  this  last  that  the  origin  of  modern  French  painting 
must  alone  be  looked  for. 

Y'^hile  frescoes  and  decorative  painting  supplied  only  a 
temporary  want,  miniature  was  from  the  first  the  real  medium 
for  the  exercise  of  whatever  artistic  zeal  existed,  and  the  ex- 
ponent, in  as  wide  a variety  as  was  open  to  it,  of  cotemporary 
thought  and  sentiment.  The  Carlovingian  School  of  miniature. 


Painting  on  Gla.ss.  In-La  Sainte-Cha^jcllc,  Paris. 


100 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


in  wliicli  the  Bj^zantine  type  predominated,  branched  out  into 
various  schools,  which  during  the  barbarism  of  the  Middle 
Ages  gradually  became  debased  by  the  introduction  of  a gro- 
tesque Gothic  element.  Architecture  probably  borrowed  many  of 
its  motives  from  the  illuminators,  but,  as  the  predominant  Art, 
it  ended  by  completely  overshadowing  them.  With  the  four- 
teenth century,  however,  miniature  began  to  put  off  its  fantastic 
character,  to  follow  nature  more  closely,  and  to  display  the 
rudiments  of  all  the  branches  of  painting.  Dante,  in  the 
eleventh  canto -of  the  Purgatory,  alludes  to  the  superiority  of 
Parisian  “ illuminators.”  During  the  fifteenth  century  this 
improvement  was  still  more  marked,  and  the  French  School  of 
miniature,  though  surpassed  in  seriousness  and  originality  by 
those  of  Flanders  and  Italy,  was  yet  skilful  in  appropriating 
many  of  the  excellences  of  both.  The  French  artists  had  not 
the  firm  grasp  of  nature  or  the  brilliant  colouring  of  the 
Flemings,  nor  the  taste  and  precision  of  the  Italians ; but 
they  surpassed  the  former  in  the  general  composition  of  their 
subjects,  and  the  latter  in  their  perspective.  The  artist  in 
whom  this  eclectic  style  was  best  represented,  and  who  forms 
the  link  in  France  between  the  Art  of  the  Middle  Ages  and  the 
Penaissance,  was 

Jehan  Fouquet,  of  Tours  (born  1415,  died  1485),  the  court 
painter  of  Louis  XI.  Though  his  costumes  recall  Italy,  his 
types  are  French,  and  he  shows  a happier  variety  in  his  groups 
and  attitudes  than  Yan  Eyck  or  Memlinc.  He  is  perhaps 
most  original  in  his  accessory  landscapes,  and  his  architec- 
ture is  also  good.  The  pictures  by  him  in  the  illuminated 
‘Josephus,’  in  the  Paris  Library,  show  freedom,  invention, 
and  great  artistic  genius,  and  the  compositions  in  his  ^ Titus 
Livius  ’ are  admirable  for  their  naturalness  and  life.  That 
representing  the  Daughter  of  Servius  Tullius  driving  over  the 
dead  body  of  her  father  displays  these  qualities  in  a high 
degree,  as  well  as  a charming  naivete  characteristic  of  the  artist 


Miniature- Painting  by  Jehan  Pouquet. 
From  the  J\IS.  ‘Titus  Livius.’ 

Iti  the  Bihlioihtque,  Tari? 


102 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


and  the  time.  A specimen  of  Foiiqnet’s  work  on  a larger  scale, 
which  entitles  him  to  the  name  of  painter,  may  be  seen  in  one 
of  the  wings  of  an  altar-piece,  containing  the  portrait  of  Etienne 
Chevalier,  Treasurer  to  Louis  XI.,  which  is  now  at  Frankfort. 

The  most  notable  artists  next  to  Fouquet,  before  the  Renais- 
sance, were  Jehan  Bourdichon,  and  Jehan  Perreal,  the  first 
of  whom  is  known  as  a painter  of  historical  subjects  and 
portraits  in  the  reign  of  Louis  XI.  The  second  was  in  repute 
at  Lyons,  in  the  reign  of  Charles  YIIL,  and  in  the  Italian 
expedition  of  that  prince,  attached  himself  to  the  French  army, 
and  painted  many  battle-scenes. 

Rene  op  Anjou  (1408 — 1480)  should  also  be  mentioned  as 
a royal  artist.  He,  too,  besides  illuminating  manuscripts,  painted 
larger  pictures,  in  which  he  partially  adopted  the  style  of  the 
Van  Eycks.  The  Cathedral  of  Aix  possesses  a good  example 
of  his  work  in  an  altar-piece  representing  Moses  and  the  Burn- 
ing Bush : ^ on  the  wings  are  portraits  of  himself  and  his 
queen  (Jeanne  de  Laval),  each  attended  by  three  patron  saints. 
In  the  Royal  Library  at  Vienna  is  an  illuminated  Romance  “ de 
la  tres  douce  Mercys,”  with  miniature  paintings  by  him,  excel- 
lently done  in  the  quaint  style  of  the  age. 

France,  following  as  yet  no  definite  direction  in  painting, 
seemed  still  to  hesitate  between  The  influences  of  Italy  and 
Flanders.  The  latter  country,  from  its  close  connection  with 
Burgundy,  which  during  the  hundred  years’  war  formed  the 
chosen  retreat  of  French  artists,  had  not  only  influenced  but 
been  influenced  by  French  Art.  This  may  be  seen  in  the 
Flemish  tapestries  of  the  fifteenth  century,  which  distinctly 
recall  the  French  miniatures.  Had  the  connection  between 
the  two  countries  been  kept  up,  it  is  probable  that  France, 
contributing  as  much  as  she  received,  might  gradually  have 
developed  an  independent  school ; but  circumstances  turned  her 
* Engraved  in  Sir  Edmund  Head’s  ‘ Handbook  of  Painting. 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


103 


attention  wholly  to  Italy,  and  confronted  thus  with  an  Art  far 
more  perfect  than  her  own,  her  native  originality  was  quickly 
absorbed.  As  early  indeed  as  1305,  Giotto  had  been  employed 


By  Rexf,  King  of  Anjou. 

From  the  Romance  “ de  la  tres  donee  Mercy s.” 
Li  the  Library,  Vienna. 


at  the  Papal  Court  at  Avignon,  and  Simone  di  jMartino  had 
also  painted  for  a time  at  tlie  same  place,  but  there  is  no  record 
that  the  works  of  these  artists  in  any  way  influenced  Prench 
painting.  It  was  the  Italian  wars,  begun  in  1491  by  Charles 


104 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


VIII.,  that  first  brought  the  artistic  treasures  of  Italy  promi- 
nently before  the  eyes  of  the  French  monarchs,  and  the  real 
history  of  French  painting  begins  with  those  Italian  artists  who, 
in  the  reign  of  Francis  I.  (1515 — 1547),  were  employed  by  that 
prince  at  Fontainebleau,  and  formed  the  school  called  by  that 
name.  Leonardo  da  Vinci  died  in  the  service  of  Francis  in 
1519,  and  from  1530,  Eosso,  or  MaItre  Eoux,  assisted  by  many 
other  Italian  artists,  worked  at  Fontainebleau  till  his  death,  in 
1541.  His  unfinished  work  was  carried  on  by  Francisco 
Primaticcio  of  Bologna,  who  was  held  in  high  esteem  by 
Francis  I.,  and  his  successors,  Henry  II.  and  Francis  II.  Two 
others,  Jacopo  Pacchiarotto  and  Hiccolo  Albati,  also  painted 
in  France  in  the  reign  of  Francis  I.  The  only  artists  who,  in 
opposition  to  this  School  of  Fontainebleau,  displayed  any  national 
feeling,  were  Jean  Cousin  and  the  Clouets. 

Jean  Cousin  (born  at  Soucy,  near  Sens,  1501 — died  1589) 
may  be  called  the  founder  of  the  French  School.  The  facts 
of  his  life  are  uncertain,  and  it  seems  doubtful  whether,  as 
Felibien  says,  he  ever  went  to  Paris  and  became  a favourite  of 
Henry  II.  and  his  successors.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  he 
began  his  career  by  painting  on  glass,  an  art  which  he  was  one 
of  the  last  to  practise.  The  examples  of  his  work,  still  to  be 
seen  in  the  Cathedral  of  Sens,  representing  the  legend  of  St. 
Eutropius,  give  a high  idea  of  his  skill ; it  is  finely  executed  in 
a broad,  free  style,  and  as  if  on  canvas  rather  than  glass.  Cousin 
is  said  to  have  been  the  first  Frenchman  who  painted  oil  pic- 
tures. The  only  specimens  now  extant  are,  his  Last  Judgment, 
in  the  Louvre,  the  picture  called  Eva  jgrima  Pandora,  which 
was  found  at  the  artist’s  chateau  of  Monthard,  and  a Descent  from 
the  Cross,  at  Mayence.  In  the  Eva,  the  tones  are  sober  but 
delicate,  and  there  is  a simplicity  in  the  contour  of  the  forms. 
In  the  Last  Judgment  the  artist  has  tried  to  equal  Michelangelo, 
but  failed.  He  ranks  high  as  a sculptor,  and  was  undoubtedly 
the  greatest  French  painter  before  Poussin  ; and  in  the  grace, 


Elizabeth  of  Austria,  Wife  of  Charles  IX.  By  Francois  Clouet. 
In  the  Louvre. 


106 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


moderation,  and  taste  lie  displays,  well  exemplifies  the  severer 
side  of  the  French  School.  Cousin  wrote  a book  on  the  pro- 
portions of  the  human  body,  which,  considering  the  time  at  which 
it  appeared,  is  said  to  he  good  of  its  kind. 

The  Clouets  were  of  Flemish  origin.  Jean,  the  founder  of 
the  family,  was  horn  at  Brussels  in  1420,  and  going  to  France 
in  1460,  was  made  painter  in  ordinary  to  Francis  I.  His  son, 
also  named  Jean,  was  horn  about  1485,  and  was  noted  for  his 
portraits.  He  painted  the  equestrian  portrait  of  Francis  I.,  in 
the  Gallery  of  Florence,  attributed  to  Holbein,  and  the  half- 
length  of  the  same  prince  at  Versailles,  attributed  to  Mabuse. 

Francois  Clouet  (horn  at  Tours  about  1510 — died  1572),  son 
of  the  last-named  Jean,  succeeded  as  painter  to  the  king,  and 
was  the  most  distinguished  of  the  family.  His  works  are 
spread  over  Italy  and  Great  Britain,*  as  well  as  France.  The 
Antwerp  Museum  has  a portrait  by  him  of  Francis  I.  when 
a child,  and  the  Louvre  admirable  portraits  of  Charles  IX.,  Eliza- 
beth of  Austria,  and  other  courtly  personages.  The  works  of 
all  the  Clouets  are  distinguished  by  a naive  adherence  to  nature, 
combined  with  great  care  and  delicacy  in  the  details.  Fouquet, 
Cousin,  and  the  Clouets — to  whom  may  he  added  the  sculptors, 
Colomhe  and  Jean  Goujon — form  a group,  remarkable  as  showing 
that  France  possessed  artists  capable  of  forming  a native  school. 
But  the  tradition  was  not  carried  on,  and  these  artists  stood 
isolated  in  the  midst  of  the  foreign  influences  growing  up  around 
them.  Francois  Clouet  is  often  called  Janet. 

At  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century,  there  was  a dearth  of 
artists  in  France,  owing  to  the  Civil  Wars  and  the  League.  After 
the  death  of  Primaticcio  in  1570,  horn  at  Antwerp,  Ambroise 
Dubois  (1543 — 1614)  and  Toussaint  Dubreuil  (d.  1604),  both 
painted  at  Fontainebleau.  The  latter  copied  exactly  the  style  of 
his  predecessor,  hut  Dubois,  who  was  by  birth  a Fleming,  inclined 
to  a colder  and  less  animated  style.  His  work  comprised  a series 
* Castle  Howard,  Stafford  House,  Althorp  Park. 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


107 


of  pictures  for  the  decoration  of  the  chamher  of  Marie  de 
jNledicis  on  the  subject  of  Theagenes  and  Charicles,  one  of 
which  is  now  in  the  Louvre.  At  Fontainebleau,  too,  Dubreuil’s 
fellow-pupil,  Martin  Freminet  (1567 — 1619),  who  had  long 
studied  in  Italy,  was  employed  by  Henry  IV.  in  1608  to  de- 
corate the  ceiling  of  the  chapel,  a work  which  he  continued 
under  Louis  XIII.  Freminet,  like  Cousin,  imitated  Michel- 
angelo, but  in  a very  different  way.  His  violent  and  pretentious 
style  caught  something  of  the  grandeur  of  his  model,  and  his 
anatomy  was  good  though  ostentatious ; but  in  colour,  a thing 
which  he  despised,  he  was  entirely  conventional  and  untrue  to 
nature.  These  traits  may  be  seen  in  his  work  in  the  Louvre, 
Mercury  bidding  Eneas  leave  Dido. 

The  School  of  Fontainebleau,  initiated  and  fostered  by  royal 
patronage,  had  given  to  French  painting  a direction  which  it 
was  long  submissively  to  follow.  The  way  to  Italy  had  been 
opened,  and  Rome  became  the  goal  of  every  French  student. 
To  those  who  could  not  go  to  the  fountain-head  of  painting, 
Fontainebleau  itself  offered  a smaller  Italy  in  the  rich  collec- 
tion of  pictures  that  Primaticcip  had  brought  together  for 
Francis  I.  The  Italian  influence,  thus  begun,  insensibly  carried 
all  before  it,  and  will  be  seen  at  its  height  during  the  latter 
lialf  of  the  seventeenth  century,  in  the  works  of  those  artists 
who  helped  to  form  the  age  of  Louis  XI Y. 

This  result  was  largely  due  to  Simon  Vouet  (b.  Paris  1590 — 
d.  1649),  wlio,  in  distinction  to  Jean  Cousin,  may  be  called  the 
founder  of  the  Italianized  School  of  French  Painting.  His  tend- 
encies were  naturalistic.  Having  given  very  early  proofs  of 
ability,  he  in  1611  accompanied  the  Baron  de  Sancy  to  Con- 
stantinople, and  performed  the  feat  of  painting  the  Sultan’s 
portrait  from  memory.  Going  shortly  afterwards  to  Rome,  he 
studied  Caravaggio  and  Guido,  and  being  patronized  by  Cardinal 
Barberini,  soon  attained  a brilliant  position,  and  in  1624  was 
made  a member  of  the  Academy  of  St.  Luke.  In  1627,  being 


108 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


recalled  by  Louis  XIII.,  Youet  returned  to  France,  to  find  the 
highest  honour  awaiting  him.  As  painter  to  the  king,  he 
executed  the  roj^al  portrait,  drew  endless  designs  for  tapestry, 
and  worked  unceasingly  at  the  royal  palaces.  He  found  time, 
besides,  to  fulfil  many  commissions  for  Eichelieu,  and  to  fill  the 
churches  of  Paris  with  his  pictures.  The  only  artist  who  for  a 
moment  disputed  his  supremacy  was  Blanchard,  with  whom  he 
decorated  the  famous  Gallery  of  the  Hotel  de  Bullion,  but  death 
removed  this  rival  from  his  path.  The  fame  of  Youet  has  not 
lasted  to  the  present  day.  The  style  he  brought  from  Italy  was, 
in  fact,  one  of  decadence.  Endowed  with  great  facility,  inven- 
tion, and  skill  in  decoration'  he  painted  at  first  with  care  and 
-^'igour,  but  attempting  more  than  he  could  properly  perform,  he 
allowed  his  style  to  degenerate  into  mere  mannerism.  The 
character  of  his  painting  is,  above  all,  superficial,  and  devoid  of 
feeling,  or  depth  of  thought.  These  defects  are  apparent  even 
in  his  masterpiece,  the  Presentation  in  the  Temple,  now  in  the 
Louvre.  The  real  merit  of  Youet  consists  in  his  great  skill  as  a 
teacher.  His  studio  was  a very  nursery  of  painting,  and  from 
it  issued  Lebrun,  Lesueur,  and  nearly  all  the  artists  of  distinc- 
tion whom  we  shall  meet  with  in  the  next  period. 

The  naturalistic  tendencies  of  Youet  were  carried  to  a still 
greater  extreme  by  Yalentin^  (1600 — 1634),  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  of  French  artists.  Born  at  Coulommiers,  in  Brie, 
he  went  early  to  Eome,  and  became  intimate  with  Poussin,  who 
sought,  though  in  vain,  to  win  him  to  a more  thoughtful  style, 
for  Yalentin  had  found  in  the  works  of  Caravaggio  the  manner 
that  exactly  suited  his  own  genius.  To  paint  nature  as  he  saw 
her,  with  a certain  rude  earnestness  and  passion,  without  regard 
to  minor  shades  of  expression,  was  the  sole  aim  which  Yalentin 
allowed  himself.  His  conceptions  were  further  limited  by  the 
nature  of  the  life  he  led ; the  influence  of  the  low  company  in 

* This  artist,  often  wrongly  called  Moise  Valentin,  probably  belonged 
to  the  family  of  Boulogne.  Yalentin  was  his  Christian  name. 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


109 


whom  he  found  his  models  is  noticeable  even  in  his  sacred 
subjects,  which  are  such  in  name  rather  than  in  feeling  and 
expression.  His  Martyrdoms,  indeed,  such  as  the  well-known 
one  of  the  Saints  Processus  and  Martinianus,  in  the  Vatican, 
recall  Eihera,  but  his  Susannah  is  simply  a girl  of  the  lower 
orders.  His  works  in  the  Louvre  display  all  the  qualities  of  his 
style.  Two  Concerts  are  good  examples  of  his  ordinary  subjects. 
The  Fortune-teller  is  an  instance  of  the  admirable  truth  and  force 
of  his  execution,  in  a subject  not  needing  the  finer  traits  of 
expression.  There  are  several  of  his  pictures  in  Pome,  where 
he  died  in  his  thirty- fourth  year. 

If  Poussin  could  not  draw  Valentin  from  the  imitation  of 
Caravaggio,  he  found  a more  apt  disciple  in  Jacques  Stella 
(1596 — 1657).  This  artist,  who  was  of  Flemish  extraction, 

was  born  at  Lyons,  and  setting  out  when  twenty  years  old  for 
Pome,  was  attracted  to  the  Court  of  Cosmo  de  Medici,  at  Florence, 
where  he  stayed  seven  years.  Proceeding  then  to  Pome,  he 
gave  himself  up  entirely  to  the  imitation  of  Poussin,  a part  well 
suited  to  his  fine  but  unoriginal  genius,  of  which  the  distinguish- 
ing traits  were  grace  and  sweetness.  These  qualities  are  seen  in 
his  sacred  pictures,  such  as  Jesus  led  from  the  Temple,  and  The 
Return  from  Egypt,  and  also  in  his  pastoral  pieces,  which  are 
singularly  beautiful,  though  even  his  peasants  have  something 
of  the  severer  classicism  of  Poussin.  In  fact,  the  nobility 
of  thought  and  moderation  in  expression  of  the  master,  are 
repeated  in  the  feebler  work  of  the  pupil.  In  1634  Stella  went 
to  Paris,  and,  dissuaded  by  Pichelieu  from  a journey  which 
he  meditated  to  the  Spanish  Court,  was  made  painter  to  the 
king,  and  invested  with  the  order  of  St.  Michael.  The  name  of 
Stella  has  been  made  famous  by  the  engravings  of  his  works 
executed  by  his  three  nieces,  Claudine,  Antoinette,  and  Fran- 
9oise  Bouronnet. 

Jacques  Blanchard  (1600 — 1638)  has  already  been  men- 
tioned as  a rival  of  Vouet.  That  which  brought  him  into  notice 


no 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


was  the  skilful  and  agreeable  style  of  colouring  which  he  had 
acquired  in  Italy  from  a study  of  the  Venetian  masters,  and 
which,  though  it  has  not  preserved  for  him  his  name  of  the 
“ French  Titian,”  yet  deserves  to  he  noticed  as  the  first  attempt 
of  any  French  artist  in  that  direction.  Blanchard,  like  Youet, 
worked  with  great  facility,  and  his  Holy  Families  and  half- 
length  Virgins  were  much  sought  after. 

Laurent  de  la  Hire  (1606 — 1656)  was  a pupil  of  Youet, 
whom  he  resembled  in  facility,  hut  his  style  was  formed  on  that 
of  Primaticcio.  After  studying  at  Fontainebleau,  he  worked  for 
some  time  in  the  studio  of  Lallemant,  an  artist  then  in  repute 
at  Paris.  La  Hire  speedily  found  employment  for  his  gentle  and 
agreeable  pencil  in  executing  commissions  for  Eichelieu  and 
the  Chancellor,  Seguier,  painting  for  the  churches  and  private 
mansions,  and  drawing  many  designs  for  tapestry.  By  far  the 
best  work  of  this  artist  was  the  picture  representing  Pope 
Nicolas  V.  visit  mg  the  tomb  containing  the  body  of  St.  Francis 
of  Assisi,  painted  originally  for  the  Capuchins  of  the  Marais  du 
Temple,  and  now  in  the  Louvre.  The  composition  is  good,  the 
light  well  arranged,  and  the  colouring  firm  and  true,  while  the 
spirit  in  which  the  whole  is  conceived  recalls  Lesueur.  La  Hire, 
however,  though  gifted  with  fertility  and  imagination,  was  only 
a painter  of  the  second  order,  and  his  style  in  general  is  cold  and 
feeble.  Later  in  life  he  painted  chiefly  landscapes,  into  which 
he  introduced  architecture  with  good  effect. 

The  superficial  manner  and  crude  colouring  of  Youet  reappear 
in  his  cotemporary,  Francois  Perrier  (1590 — 1656),  a native 
of  Burgundy  (le  Bourguignon),  who  made  his  way  when  very 
young  to  Italy,  and  studied  for  some  time  under  Lanfranco.  On 
returning  to  France,  he  painted  the  cloisters  of  the  Carthusians 
at  Lyons,  and  also  assisted  Youet;  hut  tired  of  playing  only  a 
secondary  part,  again  retired  to  Eome,  where  he  busied  himself 
chiefly  with  engraving.  In  1645  he  settled  at  Paris,  and  exe- 
cuted the  work  by  which  he  is  best  known,  the  paintings  for  tlie 


M 


V 


.-r 


V'.'-- 


I ' '>'! 


\ 

-.  ■ ‘rt] 


-X/ 


I 


\ , 

!S, 

‘ ■: 

K * 


The  Guaed-Room. 

In  the  possession  o f, 


Le  Xain. 
George. 


[Sec  i)age  111 


C • 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


Ill 


Gallery  of  tlie  Hotel  de  la  Vrilliere,  in  wliich  tlie  influence  of 
Youet,  Lanfranco,  and  Carracci,  is  apparent. 

Besides  Yalentin,  there  were  two  artists  of  this  time  who 
went  directly  to  nature  for  their  subjects,  although  they  studied 
it  from  different  points  of  view.  These  were  Le  Hain,  and 
Jacques  Callot.  The  name  of  Le  Hain  belonged  to  three  artist 
brothers  of  Picardy,  whose  respective  works  it  has  as  yet  been 
found  impossible  to  distinguish.  Antoine,  the  eldest  (b.  1588  ^), 
is  said  to  have  painted  portraits  of  a miniature  size  ; Louis 
(b.  1593)  and  Matthieu  worked  together  at  historical  subjects, 
landscape,  and  scenes  of  humble  life.  The  latter,  in  which  alone 
they  excelled,  are  full  of  truth  and  character,  and  are  marked  off 
from  the  works  of  Yalentin  and  Callot  by  a sturdy  simplicity 
and  gravity,  to  which  the  sober  tone  of  their  colouring  well 
corresponds.  The  children  and  peasants  of  Le  Kain  are  sturdy, 
but  not  joyous,  and  the  nature  of  their  subjects,  which  they 
probably  copied  from  the  lowly  life  around  them,  is  indicated  by 
such  names  as  the  Drinldng- place,  the  Family  Meal,  the  BlacJc- 
smitli,  all  of  which  are  in  the  Louvre.  The  three  brothers  were 
received  into  the  Academy  in  1648.  Antoine  and  Louis  both 
died  in  that  year,  Matthieu  in  1677. 

Jacques  Callot  (1592 — 1635),  anative  of  Lorraine,  is  known 
by  his  engravings  rather  than  as  a painter.  Much  of  his  life  was 
spent  in  vagabond  wanderings,  in  the  course  of  which  he  several 
times  visited  Rome,  and  mingled  in  the  fetes  of  the  Medici  at 
Florence.  The  whole  age  of  Louis  XIIL,  in  its  higher  no  less 
than  in  its  ignoble  aspects,  lives  in  his  engravings  and  etchings, 
which  have  thus  a historical  as  Avell  as  an  artistic  interest.  In 
composition  and  effect  the  sketches  of  Callot  are  not  technically 
correct,  but  they  charm  by  their  force,  their  endless  variety,  and 
their  truth  of  detail.  The  series  of  sketches  called  the  Miseries 
of  War  shows  the  artist’s  power  of  vividly  depicting  the  lower 
phases  of  society,  the  Temptation  of  St.  Anthony  his  fantastic 
ingenuity  and  invention.  The  great  defect  of  Callot  is  that  lack 


112 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


of  ideality  so  peculiarly  French..  There  is  nothing  in  his  work 
that  touches  the  heart,  or  opens  horizons  to  the  fancy,  as  in 
Eemhrandt.”  ^ 

The  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  was  the  opening  for 
France  of  a period  of  great  activity  in  Art,  in  which  two  strongly- 
marked  tendencies  are  apparent.  The  Italian  influence,  the 
growth  of  which  has  been  traced,  assumed  during  this  time  its 
greatest  ascendancy  over  French  painting,  hut  more  remarkable 
was  the  form  impressed  on  the  latter  by  the  peculiar  circumstances 
of  the  reign  of  Louis  XIY.  French  artists  have  always  been 
prone  to  reflect  the  fashionable  mood  of  the  hour,  and  at  no  other 
period  of  French  history  were  the  Court  and  society  so  thoroughly 
leavened,  in  their  minutest  details,  by  the  will  and  character  of 
a single  man.  It  was  natural,  therefore,  that  a race  of  painters 
should  spring  up,  who  were  eager  to  transfer  to  their  canvas  the 
form  and  spirit  of  the  history  which  was  weaving  itself  around 
them,  more  especially  as  they  might  flatter  themselves  that,  in 
depicting  any  phase  of  the  “ grand  reign,”  they  were  at  once 
obeying  the  instincts  of  patriotism,  and  assuring  their  own 
immortality.  The  school  of  Vouet  had  trained  up  a numerous 
band  of  scholars,  who  might  seem  to  have  been  specially  prepared 
for  such  a task. 

* Charles  Blauc,  ‘ Histoire  de  la  Peinture  Franyaise,’  a work  which  has 
been  constantly  consulted  in  this  sketch. 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE  AGE  OF  LOUIS  XIV. 


(1650-1700.) 


HE  tendency  of  French  painting  to  depend  too  exclusively 


on  royal  patronage  had,  as  we  have  seen,  steadily  been 
gaining  ground  from  the  first,  but  with  the  extraordinary  personal 
ascendancy  of  Louis  XIV.  it  gains  additional  strength,  and  assumes 
a definite  and  peculiar  character.  Louis  encouraged  Art  sincerely 
if  not  altogether  wisely,  and  his  example  was  followed  by  the 
nobility.  He  v/as  ably  seconded  in  this  respect  by  his  ministers, 
Colbert  and  Louvois,  and  his  favourite  painter,  Lebrun,  and  to 
their  efforts  were  due  at  least  all  the  outward  and  material 
appliances  which  could  serve  to  promote  the  progress  of  Art. 
Pictures  were  eagerly  gathered  together  from  almost  all  the 
countries  of  Europe,  or  from  the  galleries  of  private  individuals, 
to  enrich  the  collection  begun  by  Francis  I.,  and  continued  by 
Marie  de  Medicis.  Still  these  were  not  as  yet  accessible  to  the 
public,  and  were  strictly  the  private  property  of  the  king. 
More  important  was  the  foundation  by  Louis  XIV.  of  an 
Academy  of  Painting  and  Sculpture.  It  was  designed  to 
supersede  the  existing  Academy  of  St.  Luke,  a relic  of  the  old 
guilds,  dating  from  the  thirteenth  century,  whose  teaching 
had  now’  become  effete  and  injurious  to  Art.  The  new 

&p  I 


114 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


Academy,  in  spite  of  great  opposition  from  its  older  rival,  was 
actually  formed  in  1648,  with  twelve  sculptors  and  painters, 
who  were  called  ancients,  as  its  original  members,  including 
La  Hire,  Bourdon,  Le  Sueur,  and  Le  Brun.  Soon  after,  fourteen 
Academicians  were  added,  among  whom  were  Louis  and  Henri 
Testelin,  and  Philippe  de  Champaigne.  Another  Academy, 
founded  in  1675,  in  Eome,  enabled  a certain  number  of  young 
artists  to  draw  direct  inspiration  from  the  great  masters  in  the 
very  country  of  painting  itself. 

All  this  fostering  care  of  Art  was,  however,  rendered  nugatory, 
to  a great  extent,  by  the  prevailing  tendencies  of  the  time, 
which  forced  every  artist  to  follow  in  the  same  groove.  If  the 
Escurial  may  be  said  to  embody  the  gloomy  ascetism  so 
characteristic  of  Spanish  painting  under  Philip  II.,  Versailles  is 
a standing  monument  of  the  Art  that  flourished  in  France  under 
Louis  XIV.  This  Art  had  its  favourable  side.  It  was  not 
wanting  in  an  element  of  dignity  and  grandeur,  which  contrast 
favourably  with  the  triviality  and  indecency  of  the  succeeding 
period  ; but  the  grandeur  was  prone  to  become  theatrical,  and 
the  dignity  to  sink  into  bombast.  Moreover,  it  was  an  Art 
purely  conventional,  and  dedicated  to  outward  show.  It  would 
be  vain  to  seek  in  it  for  any  underlying  thought,  or  expression 
of  liner  emotion ; any  of  the  truthfulness  which  comes  from  a 
sincere  study  of  nature.  How  little  simplicity  was  understood 
or  valued  at  this  time  is  shown  by  an  anecdote  of  Louis  XIV., 
in  which  he  is  said  to  have  ordered  some  pictures  of  Teniers  to 
be  removed  from  his  apartments,  with  the  words  : “ Qn'on  niote 
ces  magots  ” (“  Away  with  these  baboons'’). 

Before  turning  to  those  painters  whose  work  was  but  an  echo 
of  their  age,  there  are  two  masters  who,  both  from  their  peculiar 
position  as  artists,  and  the  typical  character  of  their  genius, 
demand  particular  mention.  These  were  Poussin  and  Le  Sueur. 
Living  isolated  from  their  countrymen,  the  one  in  his  self- 
chosen  retirement  at  Eome,  the  other  near  a Court  which  had 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


115 


nothing  congenial  to  offer  him,  they  stand  outside  the  influence 
of  the  France  of  their  day,  yet  sum  up  in  their  work  many  of 
the  characteristic  merits  and  defects  of  the  French  School. 

Nicolas  Poussin,  the  greatest  painter  whom  France  can 
claim,  was  born  at  Andelys,  in  Normandy,  in  1594.  He  first 
studied  under  Quentin  Yarin,  but  at  the  age  of  eighteen,  having 
made  his  way  to  Paris,  became  successively  the  pupil  of  Ferdinand 
File  and  of  rAllemand.  He  probably  owed  most  at  this  time 
to  the  kindness  of  a young  nobleman  of  Poitou,  who  introduced 
him  to  the  house  of  Courtois,  mathematician  to  the  king, 
where  he  was  enabled  to  study  some  prints  of  Eaphael  and 
Giulio  Eomano.  Shortly  after  this,  Poussin  made  two  vain 
attempts  to  get  to  Eome,  but  poverty  hindered  him,  and  the 
year  1623  again  found  him  at  Paris.  Here  some  pictures, 
which  he  painted  for  the  College  of  the  Jesuits,  attracted  the 
notice  of  the  Italian  poet  Marino,  and  in  the  following  year 
Poussin  followed  this  new  patron  to  Eome.  His  cherished  wish 
now  at  last  fulfilled,  Poussin,  in  spite  of  the  death  of  Marino, 
and  the  abject  poverty  which  at  first  threatened  to  overwhelm 
him,  set  forth  undismayed  on  the  severe  path  that  was  to  lead 
him  to  such  triumphant  success.  His  genius,  though  strongly 
original,  was  one  that  ripened  slowly,  and  owed  much  to  study; 
and  among  the  rival  schools  then  dividing  Eome,  Poussin  did 
not  hastily  attach  himself  to  one  particular  style.  His  natural 
inclinations  led  him  to  Eomano,  but  study  and  reason  tempered 
this  impulse;  Titian  he  also  studied,  but  only  to  avoid  his  rich 
colouring ; and  he  could  listen  to  the  advice  of  Domenichino, 
over  whose  Descent  from  the  Cross  he  spent  much  time.  Gradu- 
ally, however,  one  thing  only  came  to  absorb  him— the 
antique.  His  studies  in  architecture,  anatomy,  and  perspective, 
were  all  made  subservient  to  this  end,  and  he  read  the  classics 
eagerly,  that  he  might  the  better  grasp  the  spirit  of  antiquity. 
Tlie  zeal  with  which  he  pursued  his  aim  is  expressed  in  the 
saying  of  Fuseli,  that  “Poussin  painted  bas-reliefs,”  but  his 


116 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


work,  as  will  be  noticed  more  particularly  presently,  remained 
original  and  French  by  the  thought  and  the  execution. 

The  features  of  his  now  maturing  style  appear  in  some 
pictures  which  he  painted  for  his  patron,  the  Cardinal  Barberini. 
The  Death  of  Germanicm  is  remarkable  for  the  grand  unity  of 
its  composition  and  expressive  action  of  the  figures,  by  which 
all  the  interest  is  made  to  centre  on  Germanicus.  In  the 
Taking  of  Jerusalem  hy  Titus,  is  apparent  the  antiquarian 
learning  which  yet  does  not  lessen  the  artistic  effect.  The  same 
remark  applies  to  the  celebrated  picture  of  The  Philistines 
smitten  hy  the  Plague,  in  which  the  historical  research  shown  in 
every  detail  is  subservient  to  the  pathos  and  horror  excited  by 
the  scene.  Poussin  was  now  enjoying  at  Pome  the  most  enviable 
position  that  a painter  even  of  his  genius  could  have  desired. 
Some  of  the  greatest  foreign  artists  were  his  friends,  and 
although  he  had  no  pupils,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  his 
influence  was  great  among  the  numerous  French  artists,  such  as 
Valentin  and  Stella,  who  came  to  study  at  Pome.  He  was 
able  to  devote  himself  to  the  work  he  loved  best,  and  whatever 
he  painted  for  his  numerous  Italian  or  French  patrons  was 
received  with  applause ; in  particular,  a series  of  the  Seven 
Sacraments,^  which  he  executed  for  the  Cavaliere  del  Pozzo,  had 
brought  him  an  immense  reputation. 

It  was  from  this  congenial  sphere  that  he  was  at  length 
drawn  by  the  repeated  solicitations  of  Pichelieu,  and  nothing 
can  better  illustrate  some  of  the  tendencies  that  beset  French 
painting,  both  at  this  time  and  afterwards,  than  his  two  years’ 
stay  at  the  French  Court.  Arriving  in  Paris  in  1640,  he  was 
received  with  the  greatest  distinction  by  Louis  XIII.,  and  made 
painter  in  ordinary  to  the  king,  Youet  being  the  first.  One  of 
the  earliest  pictures  painted  by  Poussin  in  France  bears  the 
impress  of  his  peculiar  style.  It  is  a Last  Supper — not  that 
at  Belvoir,  but  one  forming  part  of  a second  series  of  the 

Xow  in  the  possession  of  the  Duke  of  Rutland. 


])IoGE^’Es  'nii:owiN(;  away  his  Shell.  By  Nicolas  Poussin.  In  the  Lom-re. 


118 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


Seven  Sacraments,  now  in  the  Bridgewater  Gallery — and  is 
remarkable  not  only  for  the  solemn  impression  it  leaves  on 
the  spectator,  but  for  the  historical  truth  which  represents 
the  Saviour  and  Apostles  reclining,  instead  of  sitting  at  table. 
Poussin  soon  found,  however,  that  the  first  duty  of  a French 
painter  was  not  to  paint,  but  to  please  the  king  and  baffle  the 
intrigues  of  rivals.  Besides  his  larger  works  at  St.  Germain,  or 
Fontainebleau,  for  the  king  and  Kichelieu,  he  had  to  prepare 
drawings  for  the  royal  tapestry,  and  to  descend  even  to  make 
designs  for  furniture.  Simple  in  his  habits,  and  unable  to  flatter, 
he  found  the  atmosphere  of  the  Court  intolerable,  while  at  the 
same  time  Youet,  who  looked  on  him  as  an  interloper,  fomented 
against  him  intrigues  which  he  disdained  to  notice.  At  last,  in 
1642,  Poussin  obtained  leave  to  visit  Pome  under  a promise  to 
return,  but  Eichelieu  and  the  king  dying  shortly  after,  he  held 
himself  absolved  from  his  word.  At  Eome  the  artist  resumed 
his  old  life,  and  for  more  than  twenty  years  his  pencil  continued 
unremittingly  to  work.  He  died  on  the  19th  of  November, 
1665,  and  was  buried  in  San  Lorenzo  in  Lucina. 

Poussin  is  not  only  the  greatest,  but  the  most  typical  of  French 
painters,  and  this  as  much  by  his  long  absence  from  his  country 
as  by  the  character  of  his  work.  In  living  at  Eome,  he  only 
pushed  to  its  extreme  the  principle  that  led  the  artists  of  France 
to  imitate  the  manner  of  all  other  schools ; his  thorough 
originality  was  vindicated  by  his  mode  of  expression,  or  style, 
the  growth  of  which  may  now  be  noticed.  It  presents  three 
stages  of  development,  the  first  of  which  is  seen  in  his  earlier 
works  at  Eome.  These  are  somewhat  harsh  in  outline,  and  dry 
in  execution.  Moreover,  the  composition  is  often  defective,  and 
the  colouring  shows  traces  of  the  Lombard  and  Venetian 
schools.  The  Philistines  smitten  hy  the  Plague  is  the  most  com- 
plete specimen  of  his  manner  at  this  period,  to  which  also  belong 
most  of  his  Bacchanalian  pieces.  His  middle  manner  begins 
about  the  time  of  his  visit  to  Fmncc,  and  culminates  after  his 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


119 


return  to  Eome.  Thought,  the  prevailing  characteristic  of 
Poussin,  now  begins  to  appear  in  his  works ; he  is  philosopher 
as  well  as  artist.  To  this  nobler  and  purer  period,  in  which  are 
combined  beauty  of  composition,  greater  expression,  and  more 
harmonious  colouring,  belong  the  Arcady — perhaps  his  master- 
piece— the  Israelites  collecting  Manna,  and  Rebecca  and  Eliezer. 
The  last  period  of  the  artist  is  that  of  his  old  age,  when  his  hand 
grows  heavy,  and  his  colouring  becomes  gloomy,  and  there  is  a 
certain  monotony  in  his  imitation  of  the  antique  form,  hut  the 
pervading  “ thought  ” is  as  noble  and  clear  as  ever.  To  this  latter 
period  belong  the  Woman  taken  in  Adultery,  and  most  of  his 
landscapes,  of  which  some  of  the  most  notable  are  the  series 
called  The  Four  Seasons. 

In  the  extraordinary  fertility  and  variety  of  his  genius, 
Poussin  recalls  Rubens  and  Murillo.  He  attempted,  and  with 
success,  historical,  sacred,  and  mythological  subject,  as  well  as 
landscape.  But  through  all  the  changing  variety  of  his  work  runs 
the  -unity  of  the  artist’s  “ thought.”  This  constitutes  his  peculiar 
excellence,  as  it  was  the  cause  of  some  of  his  defects,  and  must 
he  dwelt  on  as  affecting  not  only  Poussin,  hut  through  him  a 
great  part  of  the  French  School.  Poussin’s  own  definition  of 
painting,  as  ^‘an  image  of  things  incorporeal  rendered  sensible 
through  imitation  of  the  form,”  will  help  to  explain  this 
principle.  It  stands  in  direct  opposition  to  that  of  the  natural- 
ist school,  which,  as  has  been  seen  in  the  case  of  Valentin,  is 
content  to  take  nature  as  it  finds  her,  and  reproduce  merely  her 
external  variety  on  the  canvas.  But  the  school  of  Poussin,  the 
school  of  thought  and  reason,  first  endeavours  to  conceive 
clearly  the  idea  it  would  express,  and  then  to  reproduce  it  in 
the  picture  by  way  of  external  forms,  used  as  symbols,  and  by 
such  a method  of  composition  and  execution  as  shall  make  it 
clear  to  the  spectator.  It  must  he  added  that  Poussin  assumed 
that  the  ideas  of  the  painter  would  always  he  noble.  In  works 
painted  on  these  principles,  we  should  expect  to  find  a sense  of 


120 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


measure  and  proportion,  a pervading  sobriety  and  judgment, 
combined  with  a rigid  adherence  to  truth  in  the  details  ; but 
also  a certain  coldness  and  formality  in  the  forms,  and  a disdain 
of  mere  colour,  as  being  only  secondary ; and  this  is  what  we 
really  find  in  Poussin.  There  is  a gravity  even  in  his  Bacchan- 
alian scenes ; a philosophic  motive  even  in  his  landscapes.  In 
these  last,  which  he  oftenest  selected  from  the  scenes  of  classic 
fable,  the  composition  is  always  excellent,  the  accessory  figures 
are  finished  with  perfect  care,  and  every  detail  of  gky  or  moun- 
tain, tree  or  flower,  is  faithfully  studied  and  accurately  painted. 
But  Poussin  is  not  content  to  let  this  rich  nature  speak  for 
itself.  Presented  to  us  in  its  most  majestic  and  solemn  aspects, 
it  is  employed  only  as  a medium  for  conveying  some  moral  from 
history,  some  lesson  from  philosophy. 

Two  pictures  will  serve  as  examples  of  these  qualities  in  the 
master,  and  the  general  working  of  his  mind.  The  Arcady 
represents  three  shepherds  and  a shepherdess  in  the  bloom  of 
youth  and  health,  suddenly  called  from  their  enjoyment  of  the 
present,  by  the  warning  inscription  on  a tomb — Et  in  Arcadia 
ego  ” (I  too  once  lived  in  Arcadia).  The  artist  has  imbued  this 
picture  with  the  whole  melancholy  of  his  soul,  and  so  clearly  is 
the  meaning  shown  by  the  action  and  expression  of  the  figures, 
that  none  can  fail  to  understand  it.  The  second  picture,  and 
the  last  which  Poussin  painted,  was  a series  of  the  Four  Seasons, 
which  he  undertook  for  Pichelieu.  Instead  of  representing  each 
season  conventionally  by  a mere  symbolical  figure,  or  through  a 
bare  imitation  of  nature,  he  bases  it,  as  it  were,  on  an  underlying 
thought.  Thus  Spring  is  represented  by  the  Earthly  Paradise, 
Summer  by  Euth  gleaning.  Autumn  by  the  Promised  Land,  with 
its  wealth  of  fruits,  and  Winter  by  the  Deluge. 

To  sum  up,  then,  Poussin  is  great  and  national  by  his  thought, 
and  by  the  wise  and  skilful  execution  of  the  forms  in  which  he 
embodied  it.  But  his  character  had,  too,  its  defective  side,  and 
in  this  he  is  equally  typical  of  his  countrymen.  Ho  enthusiasm 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE, 


121 


was  mingled  with  his  clear  thought ; on  the  side  of  the  imagina- 
tive, the  ideal,  the  spiritual,  he  was  utterly  deficient.  His  mind 
was  cast  more  in  a Pagan  than  a Christian  mould,  and  found  its 
full  strength  only  in  antique  themes  ; such,  for  instance,  as  the 


Shepherds  op  Arcadia.  By  Nicolas  Poussin. 
In  the  Louvre. 


Will  of  Eudamidas^  which  strikes  by  its  classic  simplicity,  its 
antique  presentation  of  the  grandeur  and  solemnity  of  death. 
But  for  sacred  subjects  his  powers  were  inadequate.  His  Virgins 
have  no  virginity  or  tenderness,  his  Christ  is  only  a hero  ; and 
sometimes  his  very  excess  of  thought  leads  him  astray,  as  when, 
in  the  Woman  taken  in  Adaltery^  the  expression  of  irony  on  the 


122 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


face  of  Christ  robs  it  of  all  elevation.  In  one  other  direction, 
and  that  where  we  should  least  expect  it,  Poussin  exemplifies 
the  French  spirit.  That  he  could  sometimes  err  on  the  side  of 
exaggeration,  when  the  limits  of  convention  were  once  passed,  is 
proved  by  his  Martyrdom  of  St.  Erasmus,  in  the  Vatican,  a 
picture  conceived  in  the  spirit  of  Eibera.  The  influence  of 
Poussin  needs  the  more  to  be  insisted  on,  as  it  seemed  at  first  to 
bear  so  little  fruit.  But,  in  fact,  the  principles  of  his  painting, 
congenial  as  they  were  to  much  that  was  in  the  French  spirit, 
reappear  now  and  again,  even  when  they  seemed  temporarily 
obscured  by  widely  different  theories,  and  were  destined  later  on 
to  exercise  a powerful  influence  on  French  Art.  In  the  Louvre 
there  are  no  less  than  forty  of  his  pictures. 

The  qualities  which  were  wanting  in  Poussin,  and  the  absence 
of  which  is  characteristic  of  the  French  School  generally,  were 
the  distinguishing  traits  of  the  artist  next  to  be  named. 

Eustache  le  Sueur  was  born  at  Paris  in  the  year  1617.  The 
facts  of  his  life  are  uncertain.  The  story  of  his  retreat  among 
the  Carthusians  of  Lyons  has  no  foundation  in  fact,  but  it 
indicates  the  variance  between  his  surroundings  and  his  aspir- 
ations, and  suggests  a reason  for  the  melancholy  which  habitually 
overshadowed  him.  He  began  by  being  a pupil  of  Vouet,  under 
whom  he  executed  many  designs  for  tapestry,  but  it  was  the 
sight  of  some  of  Eaphael’s  works  at  Lyons  that  first  inspired 
his  enthusiasm,  and  showed  him  the  real  strength  of  his  genius. 
Ilis  celebrated  work  for  the  Carthusians  at  Paris  was  executed 
between  1645  and  1648.  The  remainder  of  his  short  life 
appears  to  have  been  divided  between  works  for  the  Louvre, 
and  for  many  churches  and  private  mansions  of  Paris.  He  died 
in  1655,  and  was  buried  in  the  church  of  St.  Etienne  du  Mont. 

The  character  of  Le  Sueur  may  be  read  most  clearly  in  his 
works.  In  him  the  paganism  of  Poussin  is  replaced  by  a 
spirituality,  a deep  religious  fervour,  which  give  him  his  unique 
place  among  French  artists.  And  if,  for  a moment,  he  seems 


t: 


’aul  ruEAciiiNG  AT  KiTiEsus.  Ijy  Eustache  le  Sueuje  [Scc  parjc 

hi  flic  Louvre. 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


123 


akin  to  Poussin  by  bis  thought  and  the  sobriety  of  his  style, 
lie  is  at  once  seen  to  differ  from  him  in  the  greater  naivete  and 
grace  with  which  the  thought  is  expressed,  and  the  sweetness 
and  tenderness  by  which  its  austerity  is  tempered.  If  Poussin 
speaks  to  the  mind,  Le  Sueur  appeals  rather  to  the  heart,  and  his 
sentiment  clothes  itself  in  an  unstrained  dignity  of  style,  as 
free  from  affectation  or  pedantry  on  the  one  hand,  as  it  was  from 
glitter  and  ostentation  on  the  other.  The  defects  of  his  style 
lay  perhaps  in  the  weakness  of  his  colouring,  and  an  occasional 
feebleness  of  outline. 

Le  Sueur  has  left  a worthy  monument  of  his  powers  in  the 
celebrated  series  of  twenty-eight  pictures  on  the  Life  of  St. 
Bruno,  which  were  painted  for  the  Carthusians  of  Paris,  and  are 
now  in  the  Louvre.  The  separate  pictures  vary  in  merit,  but 
the  whole  series  show  the  mind  of  a great  painter.  The  best, 
perhaps,  for  its  depth  of  colour  and  the  transparency  and  soft- 
ness of  its  execution,  is  St.  Bruno  refusing  tlce  Mitre^  while  the 
Death  of  St.  Bruno  is  a masterpiece  of  composition  and  expres- 
sion. The  dramatic  instinct  of  the  artist  may  be  seen  in  the 
picture  representing  The  Pope  presicUng  over  a Consistory  which 
approves  the  founding  of  the  Chartreuse,  in  which  the  haughty 
prelates  contrast  with  the  humbler  monks  of  the  other  scenes. 
St.  Bruno  Preaching,  and  St.  Bruno  teaching  Theology  in  the 
School  of  Rheims,  are  excellent  as  studies  of  action  and  expres- 
sion. In  the  St.  Bruno  at  Prayer  much  is  told  in  little  by  the 
face  and  attitude  of  the  kneeling  form,  and  naivete  is  the 
characteristic  of  St.  Bruno  reading  the  Letter  from  the  Pope. 
Throughout  the  series,  the  good  taste  of  the  artist  is  shown  in 
the  treatment  of  the  accessory  landscape,  and  his  abundance  of 
ideas  in  the  introduction  of  picturesque  details.  In  his  mytho- 
logical paintings,  Le  Sueur  shows  the  same  poetry  and  imagin- 
ation, the  same  grace  and  modesty,  as  in  his  sacred  works.  In 
1649  he  assisted  Le  Bruninthe  decoration  of  the  Hotel  Lambert, 
and  some  of  the  paintings  he  there  executed,  such  as  the  Birth 


124 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


of  Love,  may  still  be  seen  in  tbe  Louvre.  They  show  that 
Le  Sueur  had  acquired  some  of  the  facility  of  Youet,  but  without 
allowing  it  to  dominate  his  genius ; and  it  is  remarkable  that, 
although  he  was  never  in  Italy,  he  seems  to  have  been  inspired 
with  the  very  spirit  of  antiquity. 

Le  Sueur  has  been  called  the  “ French  Eaphael;”  and  although 
the  comparison  must  not  be  strained  too  much,  it  is  not  wholly 
unjust,  especially  when  we  consider  the  different  surroundings  of 
the  two  painters.  His  picture  of  St.  Paul  preaching  at 
Ephesus,  in  the  Louvre,  at  once  recalls  the  celebrated  cartoon 
of  Eaphael.  To  the  unsurpassed  power,  by  which  the  Italian 
charms  and  overcomes,  the  Frenchman  can  lay  no  claim,  but 
his  work  breathes  a purity  and  tenderness  which  irresistibly 
touch  the  heart.  The  qualities  of  Le  Sueur  are  the  more  notice- 
able, that  they  were  entirely  alien  to  the  French  spirit. 
Exercising  no  influence  on  his  cotemporaries,  or  successors,  he 
stands  almost  alone  in  the  history  of  French  painting  ; and  if  we 
seek  a revival  of  his  spirit,  it  will  only  be  found  in  more  recent 
times,  when  many  external  influences  had  greatly  changed  and 
widened  the  traditions  of  French  thought. 

Turning  now  to  those  painters  who  were  immediately  the 
representatives  of  their  age,  we  find  one  who  seemed  to  have 
been  born  to  carry  out  its  vigorous  ideal.  The  long  career  of 

Charles  le  Brun  (born  in  Paris,  1619 — died  1690)  covers 
nearly  the  whole  extent  of  the  period  under  review,  the  most 
striking  qualities  of  which  he  sums  up  in  his  work  as  an  artist. 
He  was  justly  called  the  Louis  XIV.  of  Art,  and  at  the  zenith  of 
his  fame  might  well  have  said,  in  the  sentiment  of  his  royal 
master,  la  peinture,  c’est  moi.  He  developed  early  the  vigour 
and  industry  which  characterized  him  through  life,  and  while  a 
mere  boy  obtained  the  patronage  of  such  men  as  Eichelieu  and 
the  Chancellor,  Seguier.  The  kindness  of  the  latter  enabled  him 
to  study  under  Youet,  and  later,  in  1642,  to  visit  Eorne  with 
Poussin,  who  was  assiduous  in  giving  him  care  and  advice.  So 


• . i 


K 


The  Entey  of  Alexafdee  into 

In  the  Loim 


ro  vBYLOx.  By  Charles  Le  Bbux.  [Sec  pagr  yi\, 

till  (Xo.  74. ) 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


125 


well  did  Le  Brun  follow  tlie  teaching  of  the  great  master,  that  he 
painted,  at  this  time,  some  pictures  which  were  attributed  to 
Poussin,  such  as  the  Mucins  Sc(BVola,  now  in  the  Louvre.  A 
few  of  his  later  works  also  recall  the  same  influence.  But  after 
his  return  to  Paris  in  1646,  whither  his  great  reputation  had 
preceded  him,  his  natural  talent,  favoured  perhaps  by  circum- 
stances, soon  led  Le  Brun  in  a different  direction.  His  success 
was  great  and  uninterrupted,  and  it  was  equalled  by  his  industry. 
His  works,  however,  though  numerous,  were  all  stamped  with  the 
same  character,  and  to  consider  the  most  notable  is  to  consider 
them  all.  Introduced  by  Mazarin  to  Louis  XIV.,  the  favour  in 
which  Le  Brun  was  held  at  Court  was  increased  by  the  picture  of 
Christ  with  the  Angels,  which  he  painted  for  the  queen-mother. 
But  to  1660 — the  year  in  which  he  was  made  Director  of  the 
Gobelins,  by  Colbert — belong  the  first  important  works  which 
he  executed  for  the  king.  These  were  the  celebrated  series  of 
pictures  on  the  life  of  Alexander,  now  in  the  Louvre,  com- 
prising the  Entry  into  Bahylon,  the  Tent  of  Darius,  the  Passage 
of  the  Granicus,  and  the  Battle  of  Arhela.  They  are  completely 
typical  both  of  the  artist  and  his  time.  There  is  a significance 
even  in  the  huge  scale  on  which  they  are  planned,  and  the 
ostentation  which  they  throughout  display.  They  are  splendid 
decorative  pictures,  in  which  great  subjects  are  represented  with 
an  inexhaustible  fertility  of  invention,  nobility  of  conception, 
and  a power  of  vividly  expressing  outward  action.  Their 
technical  excellence  is  also  great,  and  the  costumes  are  carefully 
studied.  But  they  have  no  real  feeling,  and  show  the  incapacity 
of  the  artist  to  express  any  of  the  inward  sentiments  of  the 
soul. 

These  pictures  were  the  work  of  several  years,  but  on  the 
completion  of  the  Darius,  Le  Brun  was  made  first  painter  to  the 
king,  and  thenceforth  became  supreme  in  the  world  of  Art. 
The  whole  appointment  of  the  royal  palaces  and  mansions,  from 
the  most  ambitious  efforts  of  the  pencil,  to  the  smallest  details  of 


126 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


the  decorations  and  the  furniture,  was  submitted  to  his  direction, 
and  bore  the  impress  of  his  mind.  It  is  unnecessary  to  do 
more  than  refer  to  his  gigantic  labours  at  Versailles — a standing 
monument  of  his  genius — his  reconstruction  of  the  Louvre,  his 
works  for  Colbert,  and  for  churches  and  private  mansions.  The 
sacred  pictures  of  Le  Brun  have  the  nobility  and  dignity  of  his 
other  works,  and  also  their  affectation.  The  Christ  on  the  Cross, 
in  the  Louvre,  is  an  example.  The  Stoning  of  St.  Stephen,  in 
the  same  gallery,  shows  the  influence  of  Poussin.  That  Le  Brun, 
like  several  other  French  artists,  could  adopt  a better  style  when 
forced  to  follow  nature,  is  shown  by  the  portraits  of  himself  and 
the  artist  Dufresnoy,  in  the  Louvre. 

The  efforts  made  by  Le  Brun  to  promote  Art  must  not  be  passed 
over.  The  foundation  of  the  Academy  of  Painting,  in  1648, 
was  chiefly  due  to  him,  and  it  was  on  his  solicitation  that 
Louis  XIV.  established  the  French  School  at  Pome,  the  artist 
himself  being  made  its  first  director,  though  absent.  It  was 
only  natural  that  such  pre-eminence  should  he  pursued  with 
jealousy,  and  the  success  of  his  implacable  rival,  Mignard,  who 
was  opposed  to  him  by  the  Marquis  de  Louvois,  Colbert’s  suc- 
cessor, is  said  to  have  hastened  Le  Brun’s  death.  Among  the 
artists  who  assisted  him,  and  were  completely  dominated  by  his 
manner,  were  Claude  Audran  (1639 — 1684),  Bene  Antoine 
Houasse  (1645 — 1707),  and  FRANqois  Verdier  (1651 — 1730). 
With  the  last,  who  was  the  ablest  of  the  three,  ended  the  school 
of  painting  which  had  been  inaugurated  by  his  master. 

Pierre  Mignard,  called  “ Le  Eomain,”  the  persistent  and  suc- 
cessful rival  of  Le  Brun,  whom  he  equalled  in  industry  and 
versatility,  though  not  in  vigour  and  originality,  was  born  at 
Troyes  in  1610.  After  studying  two  years  at  Fontainebleau,  he 
became  the  pupil  and  docile  imitator  of  Vouet ; hut  in  1636  he 
went  to  Borne,  and  during  his  long  residence  in  that  city  his 
style  underwent  a gradual  hut  thorough  modification.  His 
favourite  model  was  Carracci,  whose  works  in  the  Farnese 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


127 


Palace  he  copied  for  the  Cardinal  de  Lyons,  but  the  influence, 
among  others,  of  Carlo  Dolci,  Sasso  Perrato,  and  Domenichino, 
is  also  visible  in  his  works.  A visit  which  he  made  to  Venice, 
in  1654,  materially  improved  his  colouring.  At  Pome  Mignard 
gained  a great  reputation  by  his  historical  pictures  and  frescoes 
in  the  manner  of  the  Carracci,  as  well  as  by  his  portraits,  some 
of  the  first  which  brought  him  into  notice  being  those  of  Urban 
VIII.  and  Innocent  X.  It  was  not  till  1657  that  the  artist 
returned  to  Prance,  where  he  painted  the  portrait  of  the  king 
with  such  success,  that  to  sit  to  Mignard  became  a fashion  which 
no  one  of  distinction  could  omit  to  follow.  Mignard  was  also 
much  employed  in  decorating  private  mansions  with  allegorical 
subjects.  A work  of  greater  importance,  and  his  chef-d' ceuvre, 
was  the  cupola  of  Yal-de-Grace,  executed  for  the  queen-mother, 
a vast  composition  in  fresco,  representing  Paradise,  and  contain- 
ing more  than  two  hundred  figures.  A work  still  better  suited 
to  his  talents  was  the  decoration  of  the  great  hall  of  St.  Cloud, 
for  Philippe  d’ Orleans. 

By  way  of  opposing  Le  Brun,  Mignard  had  long  attached  him- 
self to  the  older  Academy  of  St.  Luke,  of  which  he  was  made  the 
head  in  1664 ; but  in  1690,  on  the  death  of  his  rival,  he  became 
first  painter  to  the  king,  and  was  at  once  made  Director  of  the 
Academy  of  Painting,  all  the  grades  being  conferred  on  him 
in  one  sitting.  Death,  however,  overtook  him  in  1695,  while 
he  was  attempting  to  execute  with  his  own  hand  the  designs  he 
had  drawn  for  the  dome  of  the  Invalides. 

A certain  nobility  characterizes  the  genius  of  IMignard.  His 
great  defects  were  want  of  originality,  and  a proneness  to  affecta- 
tion. His  fresco  at  Val-de-Grace  recalls  Michelangelo,  and 
his  work  at  St.  Cloud  is  full  of  reminiscences  of  other  Italian 
masters.  Among  his  works  in  the  Louvre,  the  same  defect  again 
appears  in  the  St.  Cecilia,  which  is  in  imitation  of  Carlo  Dolci 
and  Domenichino ; the  St.  Luke  shows  his  affectation,  while 
the  Virgin  with  the  Grapes — the  type  of  many  others  painted  by 


128 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


liim — is  marked  by  sweetness  carried  to  excess.  What  redeems 
bis  work  and  justifies  bis  fame  is  tbe  propriety  and  elegance  of 
bis  composition,  tbe  smoothness  of  bis  finish,  and  the  harmonious 
charm  of  bis  colouring.  His  success  was  perhaps  greatest  in  por- 
traits. His  pencil  bad  tbe  skill  to  flatter  without  sacrificing  the 
resemblance ; and  the  term,  la  mignardise,  still  survives  to  com- 
memorate a style  which  fascinated  his  cotemporaries.  The  por- 
trait of  Madame  de  Main  tenon,  and  of  the  artist  himself,  in  the 
Louvre,  are  good  examples.  That  of  his  daughter,  Comtesse  de 
Fouquieres,  is  well  known  from  the  engraving  by  Daulle. 
Louis  XIY.  sat  to  him  ten  times.  The  ready  answer  of  Mignard 
to  the  monarch  on  one  of  these  occasions  is  too  characteristic 
of  the  artist  and  the  age  to  be  omitted.  Louis,  then  very  old, 
had  asked  the  painter  whether  he  did  not  see  him  much  changed. 
“I  see,”  replied  Mignard,  “ a few  more  victories  on  your  Majesty’s 
forehead.” 

Hearly  all  the  qualities  of  Pierre  Mignard  were  repeated,  but 
in  a less  eminent  degree,  in  his  elder  brother,  Hicolas  Mignard 
(1605 — 1668),  who  styled  himself  always  d’ Avignon.  He,  too,- 
after  studying  at  Fontainebleau,  visited  Eome,  and  adopted  the 
style  of  Annibale  Carracci,  but  returned  after  two  years  to 
Avignon.  Among  his  larger  works  were  two  large  pictures  for 
the  Chartreuse  of  Grenoble  on  the  Martyrdom  of  Carthusian 
monks  under  Henry  VIII.  of  England.  He  also  painted  por- 
traits, which  w'ere  highly  successful,  of  Louis  XIV.,  the  Queen, 
and  many  of  the  nobility. 

The  name  of  Pierre  Mignard  will  always  be  associated  in  the 
history  of  Art  with  that  of  his  friend,  Charles  du  Fresno y (1611 
— 1665),  who  began  his  career  as  a pupil  of  Perrier  and  Vouet. 
In  1633,  he  met  Mignard  at  Eome,  and  the  two  artists  thence- 
forth lived  and  worked  together.  In  1653  they  paid  a short 
visit  to  Venice,  after  which  Dufresnoy  was  obliged  to  return  to 
Paris,  where  his  friend  rejoined  him  in  1658.  The  style  of 
Dufresnoy  was  formed  partly  on  that  of  Annibale  Carracci,  partly 


Cathehine  Migxard,  Comte.sse  de  Fouquip'hes.  By  Pierre  Mignard. 

From  the  civjraving  by  Dcmlle. 

SP  K 


130 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


on  that  of  Titian.  In  design  he  adhered  closely  to  the  former, 
but  he  was  captivated  by  the  rich  colouring  of  the  latter.  Two 
of  his  pictures  may  be  seen  in  the  Louvre  ; hut  the  whole  number 
he  ever  executed,  even  including  his  copies  of  Titian,  was  ex- 


Sainte  Marguekite.  By  Dufresnoy, 
In  the  Louvre. 


tremely  few.  His  genius  led  him  to  consider  rather  the  theory 
than  the  practice  of  his  art,  and  his  fame  rests  less  on  his  paint- 
ings than  his  poem,  De  arte  graphica,  which  was  begun  before 
he  went  to  Italy,  often  revised  during  his  life,  and  published 
only  after  his  death.  It  was  translated  by  Dryden,  and  com- 
mented on  by  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds. 


PATNTING  IN  FRANCE. 


131 


A painter  who  with  more  patience  and  judgment  might  have 
risen  to  the  foremost  rank  was  Sebastian  Bourdon  (1616  — 
1671).  As  it  is,  while  reminding  ns  sometimes  of  Poussin,  he 
remains  generally  on  the  level  of  Vouet.  The  wayward  restless- 
ness of  his  life  seemed  to  reflect  itself  in  the  inconstant  variety 
of  his  style.  We  find  him,  when  only  seven  years  old,  in  the 
studio  of  a certain  Barthelemy,  at  Paris ; then  vainly  seeking 
employment  at  Toulouse,  and  other  towns ; enlisting  for  a time 
as  a soldier  ; and  finally  located  at  Pome,  where  his  poverty  com- 
pelled him  to  copy  the  pictures  of  Poussin,  and  other  notable 
artists,  for  the  dealers.  The  fear  of  being  denounced  to  the 
Inquisition  as  a Calvinist  at  length  drove  him  back  to  Paris. 

Bourdon  had  brought  from  Italy  that  facile  and  universal 
style  which  lends  itself  to  popularity,  but  is  fatal  to  excellence. 
AVith  a fine  but  undisciplined  imagination,  he  could  turn  from 
historical  or  sacred  subjects  to  Bohemian  scenes,  adopting  in  turn, 
according  to  the  character  of  the  work,  the  style  of  any  master 
with  which  his  ready  memory  supplied  him.  Of  his  pictures  in 
the  Louvre,  the  Sacrifice  of  Noah  recalls  Poussin,  but  is  deficient 
in  keeping,  and  disagreeable  in  colour.  The  Crucifixion  of  St. 
Peter  is  vulgar  in  colour,  but  shows  great  facility,  and  a broad, 
free  touch.  Other  good  examples  of  his  higher  style  are,  Ccesar 
at  the  Tomb  of  Alexander , and  a Descent  from  the  Cross.  In 
his  landscapes  Bourdon  deserves  high  praise.  They  are  painted 
in  the  serious  style  of  Poussin,  but  it  must  be  noted  that  they 
have  none  of  that  accuracy  in  regard  to  geography  and  costume 
Avhich  distinguished  the  great  master.  A favourite  subject  of 
the  artist  was  the  Flight  into  Egypt.  Tlie  Return  of  the  Arlc, 
now  in  our  National  Gallery,  was  favourably  noticed  by  Sir 
Joshua  Reynolds  for  its  poetical  treatment.  But  with  all  his 
power  and  imagination,  Bourdon  succeeded  best  in  genre  subjects 
and  portraits.  The  Halt  of  Gipsies,  in  the  Louvre,  is  admirable 
for  its  freedom  and  naturalness.  In  the  same  gallery  is  an 
excellent  portrait  of  himself.  He  also  painted  Christina  of 

K 2 


132 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


Sweden,  at  whose  Court  he  lived  for  a time.  His  genius  was 
eminently  suited  for  decorative  painting,  and  his  History  of 
Phaethon,  for  the  Hotel  Bretonvilliers,  now  perished,  was  a 
masterpiece  in  this  branch  of  Art.  Among  the  etchings  executed 
by  him,  the  Works  of  Mercy  are  the  most  noted. 

The  name  of  Coypel  is  associated  with  an  element  of  decad- 
ence in  Art — the  theatrical.  This,  however,  applies  only  slightly 
to  Hoel  Coypel  (1628 — 1707),  the  first  of  this  family  of  artists. 
Although  he  had  some  obscure  masters,  he  for  the  most  part 
formed  himself,  and  this  with  such  success,  that  he  was  chosen, 
while  quite  young,  to  assist  Charles  Errard  in  some  paintings  at 
the  Louvre.  Henceforth  his  long  life  was  chiefly  employed  in 
works  for  the  king,  including  many  designs  for  tapestry,  his 
labours  being  only  varied  by  a three  years’  residence  in  Eome, 
whither  he  was  sent  in  1672  to  succeed  Errard  as  Director  of  the 
Erench  School.  His  zeal  in  this  post  was  exemplary.  He 
caused  the  school  to  be  removed  to  a palace,  and  brought  every 
material  means  within  reach  of  the  students,  while  he  assisted 
their  progress  by  his  untiring  personal  efforts.  In  1702  Coypel 
succeeded  Mignard  as  Director  of  the  Academy.  He  died  at  the 
age  of  seventy-seven,  from  over-exertion,  while  attempting  to 
execute  a fresco  of  the  Assumption  of  the  Virgin,  in  the  church 
of  the  Invalides.  In  the  elegance  of  his  taste,  as  in  the  essentially 
mediocre  and  imitative  character  of  his  genius,  Coypel  resembles 
Mignard.  But  his  work,  with  all  its  reminiscences  of  various 
masters,  displays  a greater  simplicity  and  thoughtfulness — a 
reflex,  however  faint,  of  the  spirit  of  Poussin.  The  desire,  at 
least,  to  attain  a higher  ideal  than  was  within  his  reach,  is  trace- 
able in  his  work,  the  best  examples  of  which  are  his  pictures  in 
the  Louvre.  The  Reprobation  of  Cain  after  the  death  of  Abelj 
painted  on  his  reception  for  the  Academy,  is  but  feeble.  The 
other  four,  destined  originally  for  the  Council  chamber  at 
Versailles,  were  painted  at  Borne  when  Poussin  formed  the 
object  of  his  imitation.  The  best  are  Ptolemy  Philadelphus 


Tka.tax  giving  Pubuc  Audiencp:.  By  ISoel  Coyeel.  In  the  Louvre. 


134 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


releasing  the  Jeios,  and  Solon  explaining  his  Laws  to  the  Atheni- 
ans. Severus  distrihuting  Corn,  and  Trajan  holding  an  Audience, 
are  more  theatrical.  The  latter  shows  the  study  of  Le  Sueur. 

The  defects  observable  to  some  extent  in  i^oel  Coypel  took  a 
more  pronounced  form  in  his  son  and  pupil,  Antoine  Coypel 
(1661 — 1722),  whose  successful  career  as  an  artist  unfortunately 
tended  to  spread  the  corrupt  principles  he  inculcated.  Taken 
by  his  father  to  Koine  at  the  age  of  eleven,  Antoine  Coypel 
derived  little  profit  from  a study  of  the  old  masters.  It  is  pro- 
bable that  what  contributed  far  more  to  form  his  talents  was 
the  influence  of  the  high  literary  society  in  which  he  mixed  on 
his  return  to  Paris.  His  repute  soon  opened  to  him  the  doors 
of  the  Academy,  and  induced  the  Duke  of  Orleans  to  make  him 
his  first  painter — a post  which  he  afterwards  held  successively 
under  the  king  and  the  regent,  by  the  former  of  whom  he  was 
also  ennobled. 

Both  by  his  position  and  his  talents,  Antoine  Coypel  stands 
forth  as  the  continuator  and  corrupter  of  the  tradition  of  Le  Brun 
and  Mignard.  He  exaggerated  the  theatrical  style  of  the  one, 
the  affectation  of  the  other.  His  real  strength,  like  that  of 
Le  Brun,  lay  in  so  arranging  and  combining  vast  subjects  as  to 
produce  a whole  full  of  play  and  movement.  Like  Le  Brun,  too, 
he  carefully  studied  costume.  But  he  sought  to  refine  on  his 
predecessor  by  applying  to  the  expression  of  the  soul  those 
formal  methods  which  the  latter  had  only  employed  to  give  the 
effect  of  external  life  and  movement.  In  thus  trying  to  attain 
the  noblest  end  of  painting  by  mere  mechanical  rules,  Coypel 
only  succeeded  in  imparting  to  his  personages  an  emotion  that 
was  strained  and  theatrical.  The  pictures  of  Susannah,  Esther, 
and  Athalia,  exhibit  these  defects  to  the  full.  When  he  w^as  not 
theatrical,  he  fell  into  the  vices  of  prettiness  and  affectation. 
Whether  he  took  his  scenes  from  the  Bible  or  from  classic 
antiquity,  he  could  not  for  a moment  divest  himself  of  the 
manners  and  fashion  of  the  day.  Thus  in  his  paintings  at  the 


PAINTING  IN  PRANCE. 


135 


Palais  Koyal,  for  the  regent,  illustrating  fourteen  scenes  from 
the  ^neid,  the  characters  of  antique  Italy  appeared  travestied 
in  all  the  airs  and  fopperies  of  the  Court  of  Louis  XIV.,  and  the 
same  incongruous  French  element  mars  the  otherwise  graceful 
Eliezer  and  B.ehecca,  now  in  the  Louvre.  Among  Coypel’s 
numerous  decorative  works  for  the  king,  that  of  the  ceiling  of 
Versailles,  representing  God  the  Father  sending  His  Son  to 
redeem  the  world,  was  perhaps  the  most  important.  Death 
overtook  the  industrious  artist  while  he  was  employed  on  designs 
for  tapestry  taken  from  the  Iliad  and  the  Bible.  We  shall  have 
to  notice,  later  on,  more  members  of  this  artist  family. 

The  tendency  to  imitate  the  styles  of  different  masters,  dis- 
tinctive of  the  Bolognese  School,  will  have  been  noticed  in  more 
than  one  of  the  artists  already  named.  This  feeble  eclecticism — 
a sure  sign  of  Avant  of  individuality  in  those  who  pursue  it — was 
carried  to  its  greatest  excess  in  the  succeeding  period,  but  it  also 
characterized  the  artists  of  the  seventeenth  century : Carracci 
and  Guido  Avere  the  models  to  Avhom  they  naturally  turned,  but 
they  also  easily  caught  the  more  striking  traits  of  their  OAvn  co- 
temporaries  or  predecessors.  The  character  of  such  artists  Avas — 
to  have  none.  Their  style  presented  no  striking  beauties,  and 
Avas  marred  by  no  gross  defects ; and  if  they  produced  no  Avorks 
of  genius,  they  contrived  by  dint  of  industry  and  technical  skill 
to  paint  many  tolerable  pictures. 

These  remarks  apply  Avith  much  force  to  the  family  of 
Boulogne,  no  less  than  five  of  Avhom  Avere  painters. 

Louis  de  Boulogne  (1609 — 1674)  avIio  settled  in  Paris  after 
studying  in  Italy,  Avas  noted  for  his  skill  in  copying  the  old 
masters.  His  sons  Avere  better  knoAvn  than  himself.  The  elder. 
Bon  Boulogne  (1649 — 1717),  AAaas  taught  by  his  father,  and,  as 
pensionary  of  the  king,  liA'^ed  for  five  years  at  Pome,  Avhere  he 
studied  the  Carracci.  But  the  styles  of  Le  Brun  and  Mignard, 
Antoine  Coypel  and  Jouvenet,  Avere  also  transferred  to  his  camaas. 
His  imitative  method  once  admitted,  the  merits  of  facility,  vigour. 


136 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


nnd  aptitude  in  expression,  must  be  conceded  to  Boulogne.  The 
Assumption  is  perhaps  his  best  picture  at  the  Louvre.  St.  Bene- 
dict restoring  a Child  to  life  is  theatrical.  As  an  artist,  at  once 
facile,  and  not  too  original,  his  aid  was  much  sought  for  decorative 
painting.  He  thus  assisted  Le  Brun  in  the  chapel  and  staircase 
at  Versailles,  but  his  best  work  of  this  kind  was  a series  of 
pictures  on  the  Life  of  St.  Jerome,  in  the  chapel  of  that  saint 
rit  the  Invalides.  These,  thougli  still  conventional,  present  an 
animated  and  picturesque  effect. 

To  characterize  the  career  and  talents  of  the  younger  son, 
Louis  de  Boulogne  (1654 — 1733),  would  be  hardly  more  than 
to  repeat  Avhat  has  been  said  of  his  brother  Bon.  Although 
continual  reminiscences  form  the  style  of  both,  it  may  be  said 
that,  on  the  whole.  Bon  shows  more  affinity  to  Le  Brun,  while 
Louis  recalls  the  softer  manner  of  Mignard,  and  the  affectation 
of  Antoine  Coypel.  He  was  less  vigorous  than  his  brother,  but 
excelled  him  in  sweetness  of  colouring  and  delicacy  of  touch. 
Little  as  his  style  was  suited  for  sacred  subjects,  his  pictures  were 
much  in  request  for  churches.  He  painted  two  ‘‘Mays,”  ""  Christ 
and.  the  Centurion,  and  Christ  and  the  Woman  of  Samaria. 
Another  of  his  most  characteristic  Avorks  Avas  the  Life  of  St. 
August  in, e,  in  the  cupola  of  the  Iiwalides  : in  this  Domenichino 
forms  his  model.  In  1724:  the  artist  was  ennobled,  and  in  the 
I'ollowing  year  succeeded  Antoine  Coypel  as  first  painter.  Two 
sisters  of  this  family,  Genevieve  and  Madeleine  de  Boulogne, 
Avere  received  at  the  Academy  in  1699  as  flower  painters. 

Another  artist  Avhose  style  Avas  formed  on  the  eclectic  prin- 
ciples adopted  by  the  Boulognes  AAxas  Michel  Corneille  (1642 
— 1708),  sometimes  called  from  his  Avork  for  tapestry,  Cor- 
neilles DES  Gopelins.  He  A\aas  the  son  of  Michel  Corneille 
(1603 — 1664),  one  of  the  twelve  founders  of  the  Academy  of 
Painting  in  1648,  aaJio  had  been  one  of  the  best  pupils  of  Vouet. 

* It  Avas  the  custom  of  the  Company  of  Goldsmiths  on  each  first  of 
iUay  to  dedicate  to  Notre  Dame  a picture,  Avhich  thus  came  to  be  called 
bliortly,  “ the  IMay.” 


I’liiLirrE  LF.  IIaffi  f-faiiing  the  body  f)F  St.  Lot'is  to  Saint-Denis, 
By  Boris  de  Boulogne. 


138 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


The  graver  side  of  the  age — an  age  that  produced  Pascal — 
found  its  representative  artist  in  Philippe  de  Champaigne 
(1602 — 1674).  Although  belonging  by  his  style  to  the  Prench 

School,  he  was  horn  at  Brussels,  where  he  studied  under  the 
Flemish  landscape  painter,  Fouquieres,  and  it  was  here  that  he 
acquired  the  transparency  of  colouring,  and  the  feeling  for 
nature,  which  are  apparent  in  many  of  his  works.  Ilis  friend- 
ship with  Poussin  may  also  have  indirectly  influenced  him. 
He  was  only  nineteen  when  he  came  to  Paris,  already  skilful 
in  portraits  and  landscape.  Afterwards,  being  made  first  painter 
to  Marie  de  Medicis,  he  painted  many  sacred  pictures  for  the 
churches  which  she  either  founded  or  patronized.  It  is,  how- 
ever, with  the  Port  Eoyalists  that  his  name  will  always  he 
associated.  He  Avas  intimate  with  some  of  the  most  famous 
among  them,  and  their  portraits,  drawn  by  his  grave  and  sym- 
pathetic pencil,  still  seem  to  show  us  how  they  breathed  and 
thought.  Jansenius,  St.  Cyran,  Leniaitre,  the  Arnaulds,  were 
among  those  avIio  sat  to  him.  The  portrait  of  Eohert  Arnauld 
may  he  seen  in  the  Louvre.  There,  too,  is  the  artist’s  Last 
tiuiypei\  painted  for  the  altar  of  Port  Eoyal,  and  finer  than  all, 
his  masterpiece,  Les  Religieuses,  representing  the  Sister  Agnes 
and  the  artist’s  own  daughter.  The  execution  is  careful,  the 
expression  of  the  faces  most  touching.  The  Avhole  picture  is 
impressed  with  the  grave  and  profound  character  distinctive  of 
the  artist’s  genius.  The  portraits  of  Eichelieu  and  Louis  XIII., 
also  in  the  Louvre,  are  colder  and  less  interesting. 

An  artist  Avho,  in  the  grave  seriousness  of  his  style,  somewhat 
resembled  Champaigne,  was  Claude  le  FhvRE  (1633 — 1675),  a 
])ortrait  painter  of  great  popularity  and  fashion  in  his  day,  few 
of  whose  works  now  remain.  These,  however,  are  of  high  merit. 
A pupil  of  Le  Sueur  and  Le  Brun,  Le  Fevre  has  a manner  entirely 
his  own.  Firm  and  true  in  drawing,  and  just  in  colour,  his 
portraits  have  sinq^licity  ivithout  losing  expression  and  life. 
His  defect  lay  in  concentrating  all  his  strength  on  the  heads 


Caudixal  Riciieliet'.  By  Philippe  de  CIIAMPAIG^■E. 

In  the  Louvre. 


140 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


only,  tlie  rest  of  the  composition  being  rendered  indistinct  by 
the  too  great  depth  and  unequal  distribution  of  the  shadows. 
This  peculiarity  is  observable  in  his  picture  in  the  Louvre,  The 
Preceptor  and  Ins  Pupil. 

With  Philippe  de  Champaigne  and  Le  Pevre  maybe  associated 
two  other  artists,  who  resembled  them  in  the  possession  of  ?i 
certain  dignity  and  elevation  of  style  which  separated  them  to 
some  extent  from  their  cotemporaries.  These  were  LTicolas 
CoLOMBEL  (1646 — 1717),  and  Thomas  Blanchet  (1617 — 1689). 
The  former,  sometimes  wrongly  called  a ]3upil  of  Le  Sueur, 
showed  a praiseworthy,  if  inadequate,  attempt  to  follow  Poussin 
and  Eaphael.  A spirited,  and  by  no  means  servile,  imitation  of 
the  last-named  master  is  apparent  in  the  picture  in  the  Louvre, 
St.  Hyacinth  miracidously  carried  across  the  Borysthenes  while 
saving  an  Image  of  the  Virgin  from  the  Tartars.  Blanchet 
painted  in  the  style  of  the  Bolognese  School,  but  the  exquisite 
grace  and  dignity  of  his  genius  rendered  him  one  of  the  most 
notable  French  artists,  after  Poussin  and  Le  Sueur.  The  ceiling 
of  the  Hotel  de  Ville  at  Lyons  was  his  work. 

In  entering  on  the  landscape  Art  of  this  period,  we  come  to  a 
name  v/hich  stands  second  only  to  that  of  Poussin  among  French 
jxiinters.  Poussin  himself  had,  as  we  have  seen,  treated  land- 
scape in  his  peculiar  spirit,  and  carried  it  to  a high  degree  of 
excellence ; but  even  he  was  to  be  surpassed  in  this  branch  by 

Claude  Gellee,  born  in  1600,  at  the  chateau  of  Oha- 
maume,  on  the  banks  of  the  IMoselle,  better  known  from  the 
jdace  of  his  birth  as  Claude  Lorrain.  It  is,  in  fact,  by  this 
accident  of  birth,  as  it  may  be  called,  that  Claude  belongs  to 
the  French  School,  for  almost  the  whole  of  his  long  life  was 
spent  at  Pome,  and  his  style,  although  influenced  by  the 
example  of  Poussin,  was  on  the  whole  not  French.  His  earlier 
]>ictnres  were  painted  in  a peculiar  bluish  and  cool  tone,  but 
this  was  gradually  exchanged,  from  the  time  of  his  arrival  in 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


141 


Italy,  for  the  warmth  and  glow  of  his  later  manner.  Claude  is 
the  artist  of  the  air  and  sun.  His  scenery  is  mostly  that  of 
the  environs  of  Eome.  Eounded  groups  of  the  evergreen  oak 
often  fill  the  foreground  ; ruins,  or  imaginary  palaces,  form  the 


CROSSING  THE  Ford.  Ly  Claude  Lokrain 
la  the  Louvre.  (No,  231.) 

accessories.  Eut  the  magic  of  the  artist  lies  in  transfusing  these 
forms  with  the  living  breath  of  nature,  l>y  means  of  aerial  effects, 
or  varied  play  of  light.  The  sun,  as  it  cljanged  at  every  moment 
of  the  day,  was  the  constant  theme  of  his  pencil ; and  whether 
quivering  on  the  foliage,  or  gleaming  on  the  morning  dew,  or 


142 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


tinging  the  waves  as  it  sets,  sheds  an  ethereal  glamour  over  all 
his  pictures.  Like  Poussin — although  sometimes  with  question- 
able effect — he  peoples  his  landscapes  with  figures ; hut  as  his 
ideal  was  freer  and  more  joyous,  so  his  scenes  breathe  a more 
Arcadian  serenity. 

Almost  from  the  first  tlie  supremacy  of  Claude  in  landscape 
was  undisputed.  It  was  in  order  to  frustrate  the  attempts  of 
worthless  imitators  to  give  his  name  to  their  productions  that 
the  master  instituted  his  ‘ Liber  Veritatis  ’ * or  Book  of  Truth, 
in  which  he  kept  a sketch  of  every  picture  painted  by  his  own 
hand.  After  his  death  his  influence  Avent  on  increasing,  and 
we  shall  find  his  manner  dominant  in  the  Trench  School  of 
landscape  till  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century.  The 
works  of  Claude  are  to  he  found  in  nearly  all  the  museums  of 
Europe.  There  are  sixteen  of  his  paintings  in  the  Louvre,  of 
Avhich  A Harhour  at  Sunset,  painted  in  1639,  is  one  of  the  most 
cliaracteristic  {See  Engraving).  England  is  fortunate  in  possess- 
ing many  pictures  of  his  matured  style  at  Windsor,  and  in  the 
Dulwich  and  National  Galleries.  In  the  latter,  The  Embark- 
ation of  the  Queen  of  Sheba,  and  St.  Ursula,  may  he  especially 
pointed  out.  Claude  le  Lorrain  died  at  Pome  in  1682  f in  his 
eighty-second  year. 

When  Poussin  was  at  Pome,  he  had  met  with  great  kindness 
from  a French  family  of  the  name  of  Dughet.  In  requital,  he 
married  one  of  the  daughters,  and  at  the  same  time  adopted  two 
of  his  wife’s  brothers.  One  of  these,  Caspar  Dughet  f (1613 
— 1675),  painted  landscape  with  great  success,  and  somewhat  in- 
the  style  of  Poussin  himself.  He  was,  however,  more  purely  a 
painter,  resting  satisfied  Avith  imitation  of  the  external  aspect  of 
nature,  Avhich  he  represented  in  a style  less  severe,  and  marked 
Avith  greater  freedom,  warmth,  and  softness,  than  that  of  his 

* Now  in  the  possession  of  the  Duke  of  Devonshire,  at  Chatsworth. 

t The  Queen  possesses  at  Windsor  a drawing  by  Claude,  dated  1682. 

+ Often  called  Caspar  Poussin. 


Ancient  Hakbouji  Sunset.  By  Claude  Lorrain.  In  the  Louxn\ 


144 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


master.  His  strength  lay  in  the  vivid  representation  of  atmo- 
spheric effect,  and  is  most  apparent  in  his  celebrated  land-storms. 
Some  of  these  may  he  seen  in  the  hlational  Gallery. 

Some  doubt  exists  as  to  the  name  and  date  of  Pierre  (or 
Paul)  Patel  (11620 — 1676).  The  date  1654,  sometimes  as- 
signed as  that  of  his  birth,  should  probably  be  referred  to  his 
son.  He  is  said  to  have  been  a pupil  of  Vouet,  and  to  have 
studied  in  Italy.  A great  feature  in  the  landscapes  of  Patel 
was  the  architecture,  or  ruins,  which  he  often  introduced,  and  on 
which  he  bestowed  great  skill  and  care.  In  its  general  brilliancy 
and  harmony  his  colouring  bears  an  external  resemblance  to  that 
of  Claude ; but  the  imitation  is  cold  and  lifeless,  and  betrays 
no  genius  or  originality.  It  is  said  that  he  sometimes  painted 
landscape  for  the  figures  of  Le  Sueur  and  Lahire,  and  his  style 
would  seem  to  have  been  better  suited  for  this  than  for  purely 
original  work.  His  son,  who  is  often  confounded  with  him, 
painted  in  a less  skilful  and  darker  style. 

Jean  Francois  Millet  (1642 — 1680),  commonly  called  Fran- 
ciSQUE,  was  a native  of  Antwerp,  but  went  early  to  Paris.  In 
him  we  find  again  a follower  of  Poussin,  whose  works  he  deeply 
studied,  and  whose  style  completely  dominated  him.  In  his 
method  of  work  he  also  resembled  Claude,  often  painting  from 
memory  the  details  which  he  had  stored  up  from  a patient 
observation  of  nature.  Like  his  master.  Millet  regards  nature 
from  the  “heroic”  side.  He  overlooks,  or  purposely  omits,  all 
trivial  and  familiar  details,  selecting  only  what  is  noble  and 
dignified.  As  regards  execution,  he  painted  with  a bold  and 
free  touch,  but  he  fails  somewhat  in  the  proper  diffusion  of  his 
light.  His  son,  Jean  Francois  Millet  (1666 — 1723),  painted 
in  a style  similar,  but  far  inferior,  to  that  of  his  father. 

The  incidents  of  war  have  seldom  wanted  delineators  among 
French  artists.  Monotonous  as  such  subjects  must  necessarily 
be,  they  are  chiefly  interesting  in  proportion  to  their  historic 
truth,  and  in  this  respect  the  military  scenes  of 


J 

PAINTING  IN  FRANCE.  145 

Antoine  Francois  van  der  Meulen  (1634 — 1690)  are  not 
Avithout  value.  A Fleming  by  birtli,  he  did  not  disdain  to 
folloAV  the  French  king  in  his  campaigns,  including  that  against 
Flanders ; and  his  pictures,  painted  on  the  spot,  are  remarkable 
for  fidelity,  both  as  regards  the  localities,  the  costumes,  and  the 
varying  aspects  of  camp  life.  They  present  us,  as  it  were,  with 
a picturesque  narrative  of  war  as  it  was  carried  on  in  all  its 
pomp'  and  circumstance  by  Louis  XIV.,  from  the  &iege  of 
Cambrai,  or  the  Passage  of  the  Rhine,  to  such  lesser  incidents 
as  a halt,  or  a convoy.  Xor  is  artistic  charm  wanting  to  his 
scenes.  The  colouring  has  Flemish  brilliance,  and  the  landscape 
in  its  breadth  and  grandeur  recalls  that  of  Gasper  Dughet.  Der 
Meulen  also  bestowed  much  study  on  his  horses,  and  sometimes 
painted  them  in  the  pictures  of  Lebrun.  He  was  succeeded,  as 
painter  of  battles,  by  his  pupil,  Jean  Baptiste  Martin  (1659 — 
1735),  who  imitated  his  master  closely  but  feebly. 

Jacques  Courtois,  better  known  as  Le  Bourgignon,  Avas 
born  in  Franche-Comt4,  in  1621,  but  belongs  by  his  style  to 
Italy,  AAdiere  most  of  his  life  Avas  spent,  and  where,  after  becom- 
ing a Jesuit,  he  died  in  1676.  His  first  attempts  Avere  in  history 
and  landscape,  but  a study  of  the  Battle  of  Constantine,  in  the 
A^atican,  is  said  to  have  turned  his  attention  to  military  subjects, 
and  it  is  on  these  only  that  his  fame  rests.  In  strong  contrast 
to  ATan  der  Aleulen,  Courtois  Avas  careless  about  details,  besides 
being  inaccurate  in  draAviug;  but  these  defects  Avere  atoned  for 
by  his  force  of  imagination,  his  bold  execution,  and  his  great 
skill  in  composition.  These  qualities  enabled  him  to  succeed 
best  in  those  spirited  episodes  of  which  the  Louvre  possesses 
several  examples. 

Joseph  Parrocel  (1648 — 1704)  AA^as  a natiAm  of  Provence, 
but  passed  many  years  in  Italy,  AAdiere  the  counsels  of  Bour- 
gignon, and  the  study  of  Salvator  Posa’s  AA'orks,  contributed 
to  form  his  style.  A picture  of  the  Siege  of  Maestricht  opened 
the  Academy  to  him,  in  1676,  and  he  A\"as  aftenvards  employed 

L 


Hoses,  PorriEs,  Jasmine,  and  Larkspuii.  By  Monnoyek. 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


147 


by  Lonvois  to  paint  many  battles  for  Versailles.  Unlike  Van 
der  Meulen  and  Bourgignon,  Parrocel  was  never  present  in  a 
campaign.  While,  however,  he  falls  below  the  former  in  charm 
and  elegance,  and  the  latter  in  general  effect,  he  surpasses  them 
both  in  vigour  and  impetuosity. 

There  are  certain  subjects  which,  by  their  very  nature,  seem 
excluded  from  the  general  tendencies  of  art;  yet,  if  we  descend 
from  history  or  battles  to  genre  painting,  we  shall  find  the  latter 
losing  much  of  its  interest,  if  wholly  dissociated  from  the  time 
in  which  it  was  produced.  The  gorgeous  flower-pieces  of 

Jean  Baptiste  Monnover  (1634 — 1699)  have  thus  something 
of  the  pomp  and  struggle  for  effect  which  distinguish  the  compo- 
sitions of  Lebrun.  Any  feeling  for  nature  is  completely  absent 
from  his  pictures,  in  which  golden  vases  and  rich  drapery,  apes 
and  parroquets,  play  as  lai'ge  a part  as  the  flowers  themselves, 
Avhile,  as  if  to  prove  that  his  sole  aim  is  decoration,  the  artist  often 
combines  spring  flowers  with  autumn  fruits.  It  is  this  boldnes? 
of  colour  and  composition  which  distinguishes  Monnoyer  from 
bis  cotemporary,  Van  Huysum,  to  Avhom,  in  softness  and  finish, 
he  was  inferior.  Almost  without  a rival  in  his  s])ecial  biancb, 
i\Ionnoyer,  after  a long  career  in  Paris,  spent  his  last  years  in 
England,  where  he  often  worked  in  conjunction  with  Kneller. 
Many  of  his  works  are  at  Hampton  Court.  His  style  was  followed 
by  his  son-in-law  and  pupil,  Blaise  de  Eontenay  (1654 — 1715). 

The  first  painters  in  France  who  turned  their  attention  to  the 
study  of  animals,  were  Francois  Desportes  (1661 — 1743),  and 
Jean  Baptiste  Oudry  (1686 — 1755).  The  pictures  of  the 
former  often  carry  us  back  to  the  woods  of  Fontainebleau,  and 
the  hunting  parties  of  Louis  XIA^.,  and  have  thus,  peihaps,  a 
more  special  character  of  their  own  than  those  of  Oudry,  Avho 
was  patronized  by  Louis  XV.  In  other  respects  the  life  and 
Avork  of  the  tAVO  artists  present  much  similarity.  They  both 
attained  much  success  in  painting  floAvers  and  still-life  pieces  as 
AA^ell  as  animals,  and  AA^ere  alike  in  having  abandoned  portrait  to 

L 2 


Keynakd  SunniiyED.  By  Jean  Baptiste  Oueiiy. 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE, 


149 


nA 


devote  themselves  to  genre  subjects.  Both  had  also  been  imbued 
with  some  of  the  principles  of  Blemish  art ; Desportes  through 
the  teaching  of  Micasius,  Oiidry  through  that  of  Largilliere.  A 
closer  examination,  however,  reveals  differences  between  them. 
The  colouring  of  Desportes  was  richer  and  more  transparent,  and 
his  style  was  marked  by  more  spontaneity  and  careless  grace. 
Oudry  depended  rather  on  skill  and  reflection;  and  while  sombre 
and  monotonous  in  colour,  excelled  in  the  composition,  the 
chiaroscuro,  and  the  aerial  perspective  of  his  pictures.  Studying 
always  closely  from  nature,  he  carefully  sought  to  express  the 
peculiar  physiognomy  of  eacli  animal,  and  thus  preferred  to 
represent  them  in  repose  rather  than  under  the  excitement  of 
the  chase  or  the  combat. 

The  age  of  Louis  XIY.  glided,  by  a gradual  transition,  into 
that  of  the  Eegency  and  Louis  XV.  Painting,  as  though  weary 
of  the  stately  manner  she  had  worn  so  long,  assumed  a style 
more  independent,  graceful,  and  elegant,  at  the  same  time  that 
it  was  less  noble  and  serious.  Watteau,  the  painter  of  love  and 
gaiety,  Avas  about  to  replace  Lebrun  as  the  representative  of  the 
true  art  of  the  day.  It  is  requisite  to  keep  in  mind  these 
general  characteristics  of  the  coming  period,  in  considering  the 
painters  who  serve  as  the  links  between  it  and  the  time  that 
was  passing  away.  So  far  as  historical  painting  is  concerned, 
the  break  Avas  very  gradual.  BetAveen  the  artists  of  Louis  XIV., 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  mannerists  who  brought  painting  to  the 
loAvest  point  of  abasement,  previous  to  the  reform  of  David,  on 
the  other,  such  difference  as  exists  is  one  of  degree,  not  of  kind. 

Standing  midA\ny  betAveen  the  tAvo  extremes,  Avere  tAvo  artists, 
AA’lio  seemed  to  claim  kindred  Avith  the  older  line  of  artists,  Avhile 
they  also  deA^eloped  some  of  the  qualities  Avhich  distinguished 
their  successors.  These  Avere  La  Fosse,  and  Jean  Jouvenet. 

Charles  de  la  Fosse,  born  at  Paris  in  1G.3G,  Avas  a piqiil  of 
Lebrun,  AAdiose  style  he  at  first  imitated,  but  from  Avhom  he 
gradually  diverged,  to  deA'elope  distinct  tendencies  of  his  oavu. 


150 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


Sent  to  Rome  by  Colbert,  as  pensioner  of  the  king,  La  Fosse 
studied  Raphael  and  the  antique,  but  was  more  influenced  by  a 
stay  of  three  years  at  Venice,  where  he  endeavoured  to  master 
the  principles  of  the  great  colourists.  His  style  did  not  at  once 
assert  itself  on  his  return  to  France.  The  Proserpine,  now  in  the 
Louvre,  painted  in  1673  for  his  reception  at  the  Academy,  was 


Greyhound  protecting  Game.  By  Desportes. 

In  the  Louvre. 

still  marked  by  the  influence  of  Lebrun,  and  full  of  reminiscences 
of  the  other  masters  he  had  studied.  Nor  was  much  improve- 
ment visible  in  an  Assumption  of  the  Virgin,  painted  about  the 
same  time  for  the  nuns  of  the  Assumption  in  the  Rue  St.  Honore. 
It  is  confused  in  composition,  and  heavy  in  colouring. 

The  artist  put  forth  his  full  powers  in  painting  the  dome  and 
cupoia  of  the  Invalides,  an  immense  composition,  forming  three 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


151 


groups,  of  which  the  principal  one  represents  St.  Louis  laying 
his  crown  and  sword  in  the  hands  of  Christ,  who  appears  in  his 
glory.  In  this  work  all  the  merits  and  defects  of  the  artist  may 
he  seen.  The  brilliant  colouring,  the  incorrect  drawing,  the 
bold  but  heavy  composition,  the  absence  of  real  grandeur  in  the 
general  effect.  A Nativity,  and  an  Adoration  of  the  Kings,  still 
in  Notre  Dame,  are  also  good  examples  of  the  artist’s  matured 
style.  Another  work  of  the  artist  which  deserves  mention  is 
the  decoration  of  Montague  House,  in  London.  The  principal 
subject,  the  Birth  of  Minerva,  covered  one  of  the  ceilings.  La 
Fosse,  while  strictly  to  be  classed  with  Lebrun,  as  a painter 
purely  decorative,  yet  differs  from  him,  and  heralds  the  new 
style  of  the  eighteenth  century  in  the  greater  freedom  of  his 
manner,  and  the  superiority  of  his  colouring.  The  latter  quality, 
in  fact,  is  his  distinguishing  merit;  but  even  here  he  fell  far 
short  of  being  the  Rubens  or  Titian  that  his  cotemporaries 
thought  him.  La  Fosse  died  in  1716. 

Jean  Jouvenet  (1644 — 1717)  was  born  at  Rouen:  sent  to 
Paris  at  the  age  of  seventeen,  he  studied  for  some  time  with 
Lebrun,  under  whose  auspices  he  was,  in  1675,  received  at  the 
Academy.  His  Esther  before  Ahasuerus,  painted  for  the  occa- 
sion, was  in  the  style  of  Poussin,  whom  he  had  deeply  studied; 
but  neither  the  influence  of  that  master  or  Lebrun  permanently 
affected  the  originality  of  his  style — an  originality  whicli  is  ren- 
dered more  interesting  from  the  fact  that  the  artist  never  visited 
Italy.  In  the  later  years  of  his  life,  being  deprived  by  paralysis 
of  the  use  of  his  right  hand,  he  succeeded  in  painting  with  his 
left;  and  his  last  work,  The  Visitation  of  the  Virgin,  commonly 
called  the  Magnificat,  still  in  Notre  Dame,  is  an  example  of 
a picture  executed  under  these  conditions. 

The  merits  of  Jouvenet,  perhaps  over-praised  by  his  country- 
men, must  not  be  overlooked.  Endowed  with  great  fertility  of 
invention,  and  an  energy  which  he  sometimes  pushed  to  exagger- 
ation, he  is  less  theatrical  than  such  artists  as  Lebrun,  Mignard, 


152 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


or  Antoine  Coypel,  and  more  original  in  the  movement  and 
attitude  of  his  figures,  and  the  dramatic  effect  of  his  composition. 
In  execution  he  displayed  a firm  drawing,  a peculiarly  broad  and 
free  touch,  and  a colouring  warm  and  harmonious,  although 
generally  too  brown  and  dull.  These  qualities  are  apparent  in 
his  works  in  the  Louvre,  and  notably  in  his  masterpiece,  the 
Descent  from  the  Cross.  In  the  Raising  of  Lazarus,  the  compo- 
sition is  remarkable,  while  the  Miraculous  Draught  of  Fishes  is 
somewhat  theatrical.  The  Extreme  Unction  combines,  with  a 
masterly  execution,  more  life  and  expression  in  the  heads  than 
is  usual  with  the  artist.  This  points  to  the  vital  defect  which 
prevents  Jouvenetfrom  taking  rank  among  the  foremost  painters. 
With  all  their  force  and  dramatic  effect,  his  pictures  are  wanting 
in  true  dignity,  simplicity,  and  refinement.  They  seek,  in  short, 
to  give  by  material  means,  what  can  only  be  effected  by  studious 
thought  and  elevated  sentiment  on  the  part  of  the  artist.  And 
this  only  anticipates  what  will  have  to  be  said  again  and  again 
of  the  eighteenth  century  painters. 

Predominant  in  art  after  Lebrun’s  death,  Jouvenet  gave  the 
tone  to  many  imitators.  But  he  must  not  be  held  responsible 
for  the  faults  of  those  who  followed  him.  As  they  turned  more 
and  more  to  the  mere  materialism  of  painting,  they  abused  the 
free  and  massive  touch  which  he  had  been  the  first  to  introduce, 
in  imitation  of  the  Lombard  School,  until  “ execution  ” became 
their  sole  end  and  aim;  Avhile  they  utterly  lost  sight  of  the 
higher  qualities  which  had  redeemed  his  wmrk. 

While  La  Fosse  and  Jouvenet  represent  a phase  of  transition 
in  subjects  of  a more  ambitious  scope,  there  w'ere  some  artists 
AAdiose  Avorks  preluded  the  slighter  but  more  important  school  of 
painting  to  Avhich  Watteau  Avas  to  give  his  name.  These  we 
shall  find  among  some  painters  of  portrait  Avho  have  yet  to  be 
added  to  those  already  named.  A pupil  of  the  graAm  Lef^vre, 

Francois  de  Troy  (1645 — 1730)  presents  a great  contrast 
to  his  master.  His  long  life  reached  Avell  into  the  eighteenth 


rin:  ^rii:A('T-L<>T-s  I)i;at-(;ht  of  Fishes.  V>y  Jouvexf/e.  In  the  Louvre. 


154 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


century;  but  he  belougs  ratlier  to  Louis  XIY.  than  Louis  XV., 
and  his  name  naturally  associates  itself  with  Madame  de  Main- 
tenon  and  the  ladies  of  the  Court,  whom  he  often  painted  as 
pagan  goddesses.  His  portraits  were  excellent  for  attitude, 
expression,  and  mellowness  of  colour,  the  flesh  tints  being 
especially  admirable.  He  also  showed  great  skill  in  making  his 
sitters  beautiful,  without  sacrifice  of  truth. 

Another  portrait  painter,  who  was  high  in  favour  at  Louis 
XIV. ’s  Court,  was  Jean  Baptiste  Santerre  (1650 — 1717), 
whose  qualities  are  all  shown  in  the  well-known  picture  of 
Susannah,  in  the  Louvre.  Xaturally  without  invention,  he 
followed  the  advice  of  his  master.  Bon  Boulogne,  to  keep  to 
nature,  and  seldom  attempted  more  than  single  figures.  On 
these,  however,  he  bestowed  the  most  laborious  care*,  studying 
much  from  the  undraped  model,  and  by  these  means  attained  to 
a style  distinguished  by  its  correct  drawing,  its  sweet  and  supple 
colouring,  and  a gracefulness  bordering  on  affectation.  Disgusted 
by  some  ill-founded  complaints  respecting  a want  of  resemblance 
in  his  portraits,  the  whimsical  artist  would  at  length  only 
consent  to  paint  his  sitters  as  mythological  or  allegorical  per- 
sonages, and  with  as  much  or  as  little  truth  to  the  original  as, 
his  fancy  dictated. 

Jean  Baoux  (1677 — 1734)  was  a fellow  pupil  with  Santerre 
in  the  school  of  Bon  Boulogne,  whose  mediocre  and  agreeable 
manner  he  at  first  imitated  as  a painter  of  historical  subjects. 
After,  however,  returning  to  Paris  from  a visit  to  Borne  and 
Venice,  he  wisely  confined  himself  to  genre  pictures  and 
portraits,  the  latter  remarkable  for  their  striking  fidelity.  His 
easy  and  trivial  genius  found  congenial  scope  in  such  themes  as 
the  Seasons,  or  The  Hours  of  the  Day,  or  in  those  representations 
of  actresses  and  Court  ladies  in  mythological  guise,  which 
Santerre  had  brought  into  vogue.  His  masterpiece  in  this 
manner  was  a likeness  of  Marie  Pran9oise  Perdrigeon,  dressed 
as  a Vestal.  When  the  follies  of  the  Begency  set  in,  he  followed 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


155 


Lancret  in  painting  conversations  and  fetes  galantes.  The 
Telemaclius  with  Calypso,  in  the  Louvre,  shows  the  style  which 
Eaoux  uniformly  adopted.  Though  some  traces  of  Venetian 
influence  are  visible  in  the  colouring,  it  gives  the  general  effect 
of  sweetness,  excessive  finish,  and  even  insipidity. 

The  two  most  distinguished  representatives  of  portrait  painting 
in  this  period  remain  still  to  be  noticed.  Hyacinthe  Kigaud 
(1659 — 1743),  the  so-called  “ Van  Dyck  of  France,”  was  remark 
able,  like  that  master,  for  the  emphatic  air  of  dignity  which  he 
imparted  to  his  sitters,  and  for  his  extraordinary  power  in 
divining  and  giving  expression  to  the  special  character  of  each. 
In  particular,  the  hand — almost  as  expressive  a feature  in 
portrait  as  the  face — was  treated  by  him  with  wonderful  variety 
and  insight.  His  greatest  merit,  however,  was  truth  to  nature. 
His  portraits  of  women  were  more  natural  than  those  of  men ; 
but  that  he  absolutely  disdained  to  flatter  them  is  shown  by 
his  reply  to  a lady,  who  evidently  felt  herself  aggrieved  in 
this  respect.  “ Where,”  she  asked,  “ can  you  get  your  colours '?  ” 

AVe  both  buy  them,  madam,”  replied  the  artist,  “at  the  same 
shop.”  Eigaud  painted  a few  larger  pictures,  but,  as  advised  by 
Lebrun,  he  soon  confined  himself  to  portraits,  and  on  these 
alone  his  fame  securely  rests.  Scarcely  any  artist  had  a more 
distinguished  or  varied  array  of  sitters.  Princes  and  prelates, 
artists  and  literary  men,  all  posed  in  turn  before  him.  His  own 
portrait  hangs  in  the  Louvre,  besides  a beautiful  one  of  his 
mother,  and  the  fine  picture  of  Bossuet,  his  masterpiece.  There, 
too,  may  be  seen  that  likeness  of  Louis  XIV.  which  resembles 
a “ page  of  history.” 

The  style  of  Eigaud  is  stamped  with  the  character  of  Louis 
XIAk’s  age ; that  of  his  friend  and  cotemporary,  Xicolas  de 
LARGiLLifiRE  (1656 — 1746),  belongs  more  to  the  succeeding  one. 
AVith  him  dignity  is  exchanged  for  elegance,  and  truth  is  never 
so  rigorously  pursued  as  to  exclude  beauty,  a point  very  notable 
in  his  portraits  of  women,  Avith  whom  he  succeeded  best.  He 


156 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


also  showed  some  carelessness  in  liis  accessories,  painting  them 
always  from  memory,  whereas  Eigaud  copied  them  from  nature 
with  the  greatest  care.  Altogether  his  manner  was  simple  and 
more  natural.  His  colouring,  a point  in  which  Eigand  sometimes 
failed,  is  uniformly  fresh  and  brilliant,  and,  together  with  a 
mastery  of  chiaroscuro  and  fine  technical  skill,  points  to  the 
Flemish  influence  which  was  strongly  marked  in  him,  and 
Avhich  he  acquired  at  Antwerp  from  his  master,  Antoine  Gon- 
beau.  This  aptitude  for  picturesque  effect  enabled  him  to 
produce  historical  and  genre  pictures  with  mmcli  facility,  but  it 
is  only  in  his  portraits  that  he  shows  any  finer  artistic  feeling, 
and  on  these  his  fame  depends.  Largilliere  visited  England, 
and  executed  some  pictures  for  Charles  II.,  Avho  would  gladly 
have  retained  him  in  his  service,  and  at  a later  date  the  artist 
painted  James  II.  and  his  queen.  In  France,  besides  many 
royal  persons,  the  number  of  his  sitters  was  endless.  Portraits 
of  Helen  Lambert,  Thierry  the  sculptor,  and  Lebrun  may  be 
cited  as  good  examples.  The  last,  painted  for  his  reception 
into  the  Academy,  is  in  the  Louvre. 

One  other  painter  may  yet  be  named,  who  represents,  not 

merely  transition,  but  an  actual  change.  The  brilliant  but 

grotesque  genius  of  the  scene  painter,  Claude  Gillot  (1673 — 
1722),  inaugurated  before  its  time  the  genre  which  Watteau 
Avas  to  bring  to  perfection.  He  is  less  knoAvn  by  his  few 

paintings  than  his  engraAungs  and  etchings,  which  introduce  us 

sometimes  to  the  characters  of  Italian  comedy,  sometimes  to 
scenes  half-mythological,  half-allegorical  in  character,  in  Avhich 
fauns,  satyrs,  and  centaurs  are  mingled  in  fantastic  medle}'. 
With  Gillot  we  haa^e  passed  entirely  from  the  era  of  Louis  XIV. 
His  style,  which  has  so  strange  an  air  in  that  age  of  grave  con- 
A^ention,  is  the  natural  and  legitimate  expression  of  the  senti- 
ment of  the  eighteenth  century.  His  Aadiimsical  caprices  lead 
the  Avay  for  the  more  graceful  frivolit}^  of  Watteau. 


CHAPTER  III, 


THE  PAINTERS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

HE  connection  between  Art  and  public  life  in  Erance  is  at 


no  time  more  apparent  than  in  the  eighteenth  century.  In 
the  political  world  this  period  presented  the  most  startling  con- 
trasts and  the  most  momentous  events.  Ushered  in  by  the  gaiety 
and  extravagance  of  the  Regency,  it  ended  with  the  Revolution, 
which,  brought  about  by  new  ideas  and  aspirations  working 
nnperceived  beneath  tlie  surface  of  a corrupt  society,  was  suc- 
ceeded in  its  turn  by  the  military  despotism  of  ISTapoleon.  The 
deterioration  of  government  and  of  society  found  their  analogue 
in  the  steady  decline  of  painting. 

It  is  allowed,  by  general  consent,  that  at  no  period  was  French 
Painting  more  truly  representative  and  national  than  immediately 
after  the  reign  of  Louis  XIV.  And  it  is  important  to  notice 
that  this  verdict  is  based,  not  on  the  more  ambitious  works 
which  continued  the  tradition  of  Lebrun  or  Mignard,  but  on 
those  slighter  productions  which  aimed  at  nothing  higher  than 
to  reflect  the  charm,  the  easy  grace,  the  frivolity  of  cotemporary 
manners.  The  works  of  AVatteau  and  his  followers — so  popular 
in  their  day,  so  despised  soon  afterwards — have  survived,  while 
the  far  more  pretentious  ones  of  Leinoine  and  the  Academic 
School  are  more  or  less  forgotten.  This  fact  seems  to  argue  an 


Peufect  IIarmoxy.  By  Antoine  Watteae 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


159 


inability  in  the  Frencli  mind,  and  consequently  in  the  artists 
who  so  closely  interpreted  it,  to  fully  appreciate  the  higher 
ideals  of  Painting.  Whether  the  fault  Jay  with  the  artists  or 
with  society,  or  was  due,  as  some  say,  to  the  vicious  patronage  of 
tlie  Icings,  may  admit  of  doubt,  but  it  is  certain  tliat,  with  few 
exceptions,  the  same  factitious  element  pervades  all  the  higher 
efforts  of  French  artists,  till  the  nineteenth  century,  when  many 
foreign  ideas  were  assimilated  by  France.  In  this  respect  there 
is  little  to  choose  between  the  artists  of  Louis  XIV,  and  their 
successors  under  Louis  XV.  With  some  differences,  presently 
to  be  noticed,  between  them,  a want  of  truth,  simplicity,  and 
real  enthusiasm  is  common  to  them  all.  The  Eegency,  then, 
presents  the  anomaly  of  an  art  becoming  national  only  to  decay, 
and  it  is  to  such  subjects  as  conversations  and/^^es  galantes  that 
we  must  turn  to  find  the  genius  of  the  artist,  in  unison  with  its 
surroundings,  producing  the  most  perfect  painting  of  the  time. 
The  grosser  side  of  this  society  found,  in  time,  artists  to 
portray  it ; meanwhile  its  more  amiable  aspects  were  seized  by 
Watteau,  Lancret  and  Pater,  each  of  whom  brought  a special 
qualification  to  the  task. 

Antoine  Watteau,  born  at  Valenciennes  in  1684,  began  life 
under  not  very  auspicious  circumstances.  It  is  strange  to  think 
of  the  inventor  of  fetes  galantes,  painting  under  stress  of  poverty 
rude  pictures  of  St.  Nicholas  for  a Parisian  dealer.  He  found, 
however,  his  true  vocation  on  entering  the  congenial  studio  of 
Gillot,  and  although  a quarrel  soon  parted  master  and  pupil,  the 
style  of  Watteau  was  already  formed.  He  could  summon  the 
precise  and  mellow  touch  of  Teniers,  the  rich  colouring  of 
Piibens  and  Veronese,  to  aid  French  imagination  at  its  best  and 
sprightliest.  The  picture  which  he  painted  for  his  reception  into 
the  Academy,  the  Enibarkment  for  the  Isle  of  Cgthera.,  now  in 
the  Louvre,  is  happily  suggestive  of  the  scope  and  aim  of  his 
whole  work.  It  is  always  to  an  enchanted  land  of  love  and 
pleasure  that  Watteau  leads  us.  At  first  sight  nothing  could 


160 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


seem  more  trivial  and  affected  than  these  fetes  galantes  and 
amusements  cliarnpetres,  where  the  figures  and  the  landscape  are 
equally  artificial ; hut  the  artist  has  shed  over  them  the  poetry  of 
his  genius,  and  the  triviality  is  found  to  interest  the  affectation 


Fete  Champetre.  By  Pater. 


to  have  something  of  the  careless  grace  of  nature.  This  is  what 
constitutes  the  merit  of  Watteau,  and  raises  him  above  all  his 
rivals  in  the  same  field.  He  was  the  only  artist  who  so  treated 
a conventional  theme  as  to  idealize  it,  and  his  genius  has  given 
an  enduring  life  and  charm  to  subjects  in  their  nature  slight  and 
transient.  In  contrast  to  his  subjects,  the  life  of  Watteau  was 
melancholy  and  darkened  by  ill-health.  He  died  young  in  1721. 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


161 


The  style  of  Watteau  was  followed  by  his  pupil  Jean  Baptiste 
Pater  (1695 — 1736),  but  in  a lower  taste,  and  with  a fancy 
less  delicate.  His  figures,  which  he  often  repeated,  are  more 
vulgar  in  type  ; his  drawing  is  often  faulty,  and  his  composition 
slovenly.  These  defects,  partly  due  to  careless  teaching,  were 
atoned  for  by  his  rich  and  agreeable  Flemish  colouring,  and  his 
feeling  for  the  effect  of  light  and  shade. 

!N'icolas  Lancret  (1690 — 1743),  a pupil  of  Gillot,  has  neither 
the  poetry  of  Watteau  nor  the  natural  liveliness  of  Pater,  but  he 
represented  more  exactly  than  either  the  fashionable  society  of 
the  time.  His  pictures,  however,  have  more  than  a historical 
interest.  Though  somewhat  cold  and  elegant,  they  show  great 
versatility  and  invention,  as  well  as  a praiseworthy  zeal  to  follow 
nature  faithfully  so  far  as  it  was  understood  at  the  time. 

It  has  been  noticed  that  the  historical  painters  of  the  seven- 
teenth and  eighteenth  centuries  resembled  one  another  in  their 
lack  of  truth  and  real  simplicity;  but  it  must  not  be  supposed 
that  no  difference  existed  between  them,  or  that  the  latter  were 
not  entirely  the  disciples  of  their  time.  Lemoine  in  his  work 
and  aims  reminds  us  much  of  Lebrun,  yet  we  are  sensible  of  a 
difference  between  them.  Nor,  to  speak  generally,  can  any  of 
the  older  school  be  said  to  have  descended  to  the  level  of 
Boucher  and  Vanloo.  The  falling  off  implied  in  this  transition 
can  be  traced  as  dependent  partly  on  a deviation  from  the  higher 
Italian  models  which  the  French  artists  of  the  sixteenth  and 
seventeenth  centuries  had  followed,  partly  on  the  external 
circumstances  with  which  that  deviation  was  closely  connected. 
Poussin  and  Lesueur,  tlie  great  representatives  of  the  higher 
style,  had  indeed  stood  aloof  from  the  general  current  of  French 
art,  but  Poussin  at  least  had  had  some  influence  in  directing  it, 
Stella  had  listened  to  his  advice  in  Rome,  Lebrun  and  Bourdon 
both  owed  much  to  him.  Moreover,  the  names  of  Mignard, 
Dufresnoy,  and  FToel  Coypel  suffice  to  show  that  throughout  the 
greater  part  of  the  age  of  Louis  XIV.  French  artists  had  not  lost 


162 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


the  faculty  for  being  attracted  to  great  models.  But  with  the 
eighteenth  century  the  schools  of  Eoine  and  Florence  had  lost 
their  power  even  to  attract.  French  artists,  indeed,  still  went  to 
Italy,  but  the  faculty  of  studying  and  understanding  the  great 
masters  was  gone  from  them.  It  was  not  without  significance 
that  the  really  effective  foreign  influence  of  the  day  came,  as  we 
have  seen  in  the  case  of  Watteau,  from  Flanders,  not  Italy. 
Since  Jouvenet  had  introduced  the  touch,  in  particular,  of  the 
Lombard  School,  execution  became  the  rock  on  which  French 
artists  split.  Instead  of  using  the  material  means  of  their  art  in 
the  service  of  true  and  worthy  conceptions,  they  thought  the 
former  alone  were  sufficient.  They  worked,  as  it  were,  from  the 
outside.  A method  like  this  employed  by  artists  with  really 
worthy  aims,  such  as  Lemoine,  produced  works  bold  and  vast, 
indeed,  but  soulless,  while  in  the  hands  of  such  men  as  Boucher 
and  Carle  Yanloo  it  dwindled  into  that  lowest  mannerism, 
which  can  execute  with  the  same  mechanical  facility  a face  or 
a tree,  arrange  a historical  scene  or  trace  an  ornamental  device. 
In  spite,  then,  of  their  freer,  richer,  and  more  varied  methods  of 
execution,  the  painters  of  the  eighteenth  century  seem  only  to 
have  disencumbered  themselves  of  the  stiffness  of  their  pre- 
decessors to  fall  into  a mannerism  as  absurd ; in  spite  of  their 
greater  love  for  nature  and  reality  (as  they  understood  them),  < 
they  were  led  astray  by  the  false  taste  of  their  time.  Lastly, 
with  undeniable  genius,  they  were  without  external  incentives  to 
use  it  nobly.  Louis  XI Y.,  with  all  his  vices,  was  not  without  a 
true  feeling  for  greatness,  which  reflected  itself  in  his  sincere 
patronage  of  art.  The  light  in  which  Louis  XY.  considered 
painting  was  as  one  means  the  more  for  ministering  to  his  jaded 
tastes,  while  his  care  for  the  greatness  of  France  was  summed  up 
in  the  cynical  indifference  of  his  remark  on  some  of  Joseph 
Yernet’s  pictures  ; ‘‘There  is  no  longer  any  navy  in  France  but 
that  of  Yernet."  The  painter  who  most  fully  represents  his 
time  is 


Maniioui').  By  Nkoi.a.s  Lancrkt.  In  the  National  Gallery. 


164 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


ERANgois  Lemoine  (1688 — 1737).  His  early  studies  were 
directed  by  Louis  Gallocbe,  who  continued  the  school  of 
Boulogne  and  Santerre,  and  whose  academic  style  may  he  seen 
in  his  Hercules  and  Alcestis  in  the  Louvre.  From  the 
trammels  of  the  academic  method  Lemoine  never  freed  himself, 
hut  his  genius  imparted  to  it  the  utmost  seriousness  and 
elevation  it  was  capable  of  attaining.  Weak  or  exaggerated  on 
the  side  of  expression,  and  incorrect  in  drawing,  Lemoine’s  power 
lay  in  arranging  vast  masses  so  as  to  obtain  a grand  effect,  which 
was  heightened  by  the  charm  of  a transparent  and  harmonious 
colouring.  Beyond  this  he  could  not  go.  His  vulgar  and 
unideal  treatment  of  individual  figures  may  he  seen  in  the 
Hercules  and  Cacus  in  the  Louvre.  It  was  painted  before  he 
had  seen  Italy,  hut  a short  visit  to  that  country  in  1723  only 
confirmed  his  predilections,  without  teaching  him  the  secrets 
of  the  old  masters.  He  admired  Michelangelo,  hut  only  as  a 
wielder  of  mighty  masses,  a composer  of  vast  schemes.  Ambi- 
tious and  always  meditating  great  projects,  Lemoine,  under  an 
appearance  of  facility,  worked  with  the  greatest  care,  and  essayed 
every  kind  of  composition.  The  Apotheosis  of  Hercules  at 
Versailles,  painted  on  a scale  larger  than  nature,  shows  all  the 
skill  of  the  artist  in  subjugating  the  difficulties  of  the  place  to 
the  harmony  of  his  composition,  as  it  also  marks  the  utmost 
limits  of  his  talent.  For  this,  and  other  great  works,  Louis  XV. 
bestowed  a pension  on  the  artist,  but  comparing  the  treatment  of 
Lebrun  by  Louis  XIV.,  Lemoine  conceived  himself  neglected. 
This,  with  the  arduous  labours  he  had  undergone,  so  obscured 
his  reason  that  he  put  an  end  to  his  own  life. 

The  fire  and  energy  which  characterized  Lemoine  were  trans- 
formed into  sweetness  and  insipidity  in  his  pupil 

Charles  Xatoire  (1700 — 1777).  Possessed  of  the  same 
qualities  as  his  master,  Xatoire  always  remains  on  a lower  level. 
His  lighter  and  more  superficial  style  and  the  prevailing  rose- 
tones  of  his  colouring  lent  themselves  admirably  to  decorative 


The  Fi'hst  Chaptei:  of  the  Okdep.  of  '•  Le  Saint  Esprit,”  held  by 
Henri  IV.  in  the  Church  of  the  Augustins,  Jan.  8,  1695. 

By  Jean  Francois  de  Troy,  hi  the  Louvre. 


166 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


painting.  The  best  examples  of  liis  more  ambitious  work  were 
his  paintings  on  the  Life,  of  the  Saviour,  for  the  Foundling 
Chapel,  at  Paris,  of  which  engravings  survive.  Early  in  life, 
when  a pensioner  at  Eome,  Natoire  gained  great  success  at  a 
time  when  the  old  masters  had  utterly  lost  their  meaning  for 
his  cotemporaries  as  for  himself.  In  1751,  being  made  director 
of  the  French  School  at  Eome,  he  once  more  visited  Italy,  and 
eventually  died,  half-forgotten,  at  Gastel  Gandolfo. 

A picturesque  vigour  of  composition  and  a brilliant  and 
harmonious  colouring  were  the  characteristics  of 

Jean  Francois  de  Troy  (1679 — 1752).  These  qualities, 
derived  from  the  study  of  Eubens  and  Veronese,  are  most  con- 
spicuous in  hi?,  Plague  of  Marseilles,  now  in  the  Chateau  of  Borely, 
a picture  which  is  interesting  for  the  influence  it  exercised 
on  Delacroix  and  the  whole  modern  school.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Chapter  of  the  Order  of  the  Holy  Spirit  held  by  Henry  IV., 
in  the  Louvre,  shows  the  pomp  and  dignity  which  gave  de  Troy 
some  affinity  with  the  painters  of  Louis  XIV.  Unfortunately 
the  defects  of  the  artist  were  such  as  to  neutralize  his  great 
powers,  and  deprive  him  of  any  title  to  lasting  fame.  He  abused 
his  facility  to  multiply  pictures  of  every  kind,  which,  unequal  in 
merit,  were  uniformly  marred  by. the  want  of  expression  and 
ideality  common  to  the  time.  This  applies,  in  an  especial 
degree,  to.  the  common  female  types  of  his  Biblical  scenes,  such 
as  the  Susannah  or  Bathsheba.  One  of  his  last  works,  Christ  in 
the  Garden  of  Olives,  must,  however,  be  noticed  as  admirable. 
De  Troy  died  in  Eome  as  director  of  the  Academy.  He  was  a 
son  and  pupil  of  Frangois  de  Troy. 

Some  grace  and  energy  distinguished  the  otherwise  academic 
style  of  Antoine  Eivalz  (1667 — 1735),  who  on  returning  from 
Eome  was  made  painter  to  his  native  town  of  Toulouse.  His 
works,  once  much  admired,  are  now  unknown,  but  he  deserves 
mention  as  the  founder  of  the  first  provincial  academy  in  France. 
It  was  established  by  him  as  a School  for  the  Model,  and  in 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


167 


1750  raised  by  Louis  XV.  to  an  Academy  of  Painting  and 
Sculpture.  Eivalz  assisted  in  forming  the  powers  of 

Pierre  Subleyras.  a native  of  Uzes,  in  the  south  of  Prance 
(1699 — 1749),  an  artist  who  in  original  power  probably  surpassed 
all  his  cotemporaries.  Unfortunately,  endowed  as  he  was  with 
qualities  that  quickly  fascinate,  Subleyras  rested  satisfied  with 
a fame  too  easily  acquired.  There  is  something  in  him  that 
recalls  Bourdon,  but  he  was  even  more  careless  and  facile.  His 
fire  and  invention,  his  supple  touch,  his  skilful  composition, 
and  his  golden  colouring,  were  conspicuous  in  his  earliest  work, 
and  persist,  unaccompanied  by  any  deeper  qualities,  in  his  latest. 
The  brilliant  uniformity  of  his  style  may  be  thoroughly  studied 
in  his  eleven  pictures  in  the  Louvre.  The  Brazen  Serpent,  a 
work  which  easily  won  him  the  prize  of  Pome,  is  theatrical  but 
full  of  promise.  The  Magdalen  at  the  feet  of  Jesus  and  the 
Mass  of  St.  Basil  were  painted  at  Eome,  where  the  greater  part 
of  his  life  was  spent.  The  latter  picture  was  executed,  by  order 
of  the  Pope,  to  be  reproduced  in  mosaic  for  St.  Peter’s — an 
honour  at  that  time  almost  unexampled.  But  the  Eoman 
pictures  show  no  trace  of  Eome.  The  Magdalen,  his  masterpiece, 
attracts  by  the  same  qualities  as  his  earlier  work.  With  all  its 
gracious  charm  of  execution  and  colouring,  the  composition  on  a 
closer  view  is  seen  to  be  mannered,  the  attitudes  theatrical,  the 
faces  without  expression.  The  artist  in  fact  was  without  depth 
of  sentiment  or  feeling  for  nature,  and,  for  want  of  study  and 
meditation,  never  penetrated  below  the  surface  of  his  art.  The 
St.  Benedict  raising  a Child  to  life  seems,  however,  to  prove  that 
he  could  have  painted  with  more  warmth  of  feeling  had  he 
chosen  to  cultivate  his  powers.  Subleyras  often  painted  small 
genre  pictures,  and  here  his  grace  and  spirit  were  inimitable. 
The  Falcon  and  the  Hermit,  representing  scenes  from  Lafontaine, 
are  excellent  examples  of  this  lighter  vein. 

After  the  death  of  Lemoine,  in  1737,  an  extraordinary  ascend- 
ancy in  art  was  exercised  by  Carle  Vanloo  (1705 — 1765).  The 


168 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


originally  fine  genius  of  this  artist,  corrupted  by  the  taste  of  the 
time,  reacted  disastrously  on  painting.  Various  influences  con- 
tributed to  mould  him.  Of  Dutch  descent,  he  had  early  been 
taken  to  Italy  by  his  brother,  and  already  gained  some  popularity 
in  France,  before  he  again  went  to  Eome  in  1727  as  pensioner 
of  the  Academy.  The  Virgin  in  the  Louvre,  painted  during  the 
latter  visit,  is  finished  with  Dutch  smoothness,  and  shows  that 
he  had  not  yet  forgotten  to  work  with  care;  but  after  his  return 
to  Paris  in  1734,  the  crude  Italian  style  of  the  day,  modified  only 
by  French  affectation,  prevailed  more  and  more  in  his  work.  His 
facility  and  industry  were  incredible.  He  attempted  every  kind 
of  subject,  and  almost  every  method  of  painting — oil  and  fresco, 
distemper  and  encaustic.  But  the  demands  made  on  him  by  his 
popularity  overtaxed  his  powers.  His  haste  led  him  to  exaggerate, 
and  in  his  lavish  abuse  of  flying  draperies,  theatrical  attitudes, 
and  multiplication  of  flamboyant  lines,  he  seemed  to  have  carried 
mannerism  to  its  last  extreme.  Yet  some  admirable  qualities 
must  be  conceded  to  Vanloo.  His  numerous  pictures  in  the 
churches  of  Paris,  though  redeemed  by  warmth  of  sentiment, 
show  that  he  was  specially  unfitted  for  sacred  subjects,  nor  had 
he  the  thought  and  learning  requisite  for  historical  painting. 
His  modest  Halte  de  Chasse,  in  the  Louvre,  better  characterizes 
him  than  his  more  pretentious  works.  It  shows  that  picturesque 
force,  naturalness,  and  fresh  transparent  colouring  which  in 
better  times  might  have  made  him  a charming  painter  of  genre 
subjects. 

Jean  Baptiste  Vanloo  (1684 — 1745)  was  the  elder  brother 
of  Carle,  but  did  not  gain  so  great  a reputation.  He  was  born 
at  Aix,  where  his  father,  Louis  Vanloo,  originally  a native  of 
Amsterdam,  had  just  settled.  Jean  Baptiste  was  almost  as  pro- 
lific an  artist  as  his  brother,  but  excelled  in  portraits,  the  flesh 
of  which  he  rendered  wdth  great  skill.  The  portraits  of 
Frederick,  Prince  of  Wales,  and  Frederick  the  Great  of  Prussia, 
at  Hampton  Court,  were  by  him.  The  rich  and  harmonious 


Cajilk  Vaxloo’s  Studio.  By  Cakle  Yanloo. 


170 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


riemish  colouring,  mingled  with  a certain  French  grace  which 
characterized  his  talent,  are  apparent  in  his  Diana  and  Endy- 
mion  in  the  Louvre.  His  two  sons,  who  were  also  his  pupils, 
contributed  to  spread  his  influence  in  foreign  countries.  Louis 
Michel  Yanloo  became  in  1736  painter  to  the  King  of  Spain^ 
and  Charles  Amedee  Yanloo  held  the  same  office  under  the 
King  of  Prussia. 

The  manner  of  the  Yanloos  was  transmitted  in  varying 
degrees  to  several  pupils.  Pierre  Charles  Tremoliere  (1703 
— 1739),  a pupil  of  Jean  B.  Yanloo,  had  naturally  some  of  the 
grace  and  charm  of  Subleyras,  but  was  inferior  to  him  in  power 
of  expression.  The  few  sacred  and  other  pictures  which  he 
painted  after  studying  at  Kome  did  not  rise  above  his  early 
teaching  or  the  mannerism  of  the  day,  but  his  genius  gave 
promise  of  more  than  he  actually  performed. 

Gabriel  Francois  Doyen  (1726 — 1806)  and  Jean  Francois 
Lagrenee  (1724 — 1805)  were  pupils  of  Carle  Yanloo.  The 
former  painted  the  chapel  of  St.  Gregory  at  the  Invalides,  the 
sketches  for  which  had  been  prepared  by  Yanloo  just  before  his 
death.  The  dominant  traits  of  Doyen  were  a masculine  vigour 
and  warmth.  He  studied  the  Carracci  at  Eome,  Solimena  at 
Yenice,  and  generally  such  masters  as  could  teach  him  picturesque 
effect.  The  latter  quality  is  very  remarkable  in  his  master- 
])iece,  The  Plague  of  Burning in  the  Church  of  St.  Eoch, 
From  groups  of  death  in  the  foreground,  appropriately  shrouded 
in  shadow,  the  eye  ascends  to  figures  whose  outstretched  hands 
indicate  some  hope,  while  above  all  is  seen  St.  Genevieve, 
radiant  in  glory.  Doyen  died  in  Eussia,  where  he  became  first 
painter  to  Catherine  II.  and  Paul  I. 

Lagrenee,  with  whom  may  be  placed  his  brother  and  pupil 
Jean  Jacques  Lagrenee  (1740 — 1821),  was  the  antithesis  of 

* In  1129,  under  Louis  VI.,  fire  was  said  to  have  fallen  from  heaven 
and  burnt  the  entrails  of  the  people.  It  was  stopped  at  the  intercession 
of  St.  Genevieve. 


PAINTING  IN  FRA.NCE. 


171 


Doyen.  An  entire  absence  of  fire  and  imagination,  or  any 
decided  individuality,  characterized  these  brothers,  who  neverthe- 
less, by  industry  and  study,  attained  a style  less  mannered  than 
their  cotemporaries,  and  marked  by  a correct  and  agreeable 
touch,  a tender  and  transparent  colouring.  The  elder,  while  at 
Eome,  painted  Friendship  consoling  Old  Age  for  the  Departure 
of  the  LoveSy  in  imitation  of  David,  but  his  powers  were  too 
feeble  to  enable  him  to  succeed  in  that  manner,  and  his  smaller 
pictures  representing  the  Virgin,  or  allegorical  figures  such  as 
Poetry  or  Philosophy,  were  better  than  his  historical  attempts. 
The  rendering  of  the  flesh  is  especially  good.  The  Rape  of  Deja- 
neira,  in  the  Louvre,  is  a fair  example  of  his  weak  but  pleasing 
talents,  as  Melancholy,  in  the  same  gallery,  shows  the  prett}" 
and  delicate  style  of  his  brother. 

Want  of  individuality,  combined  with  a certain  facility  and 
power  to  please,  were  again  the  characteristics  of  Noel  Nicolas 
CoYPEL  (1691 — 1734),  the  half-brother,  and  Charles  Coypel 
(1694 — 1752),  the  son  of  Antoine  Coypel.  With  the  former 
these  qualities  were  displayed  to  most  advantage  in  mythological 
pictures,  such  as  the  Triumph  of  Galatea.  The  style  of  the 
latter  was  much  influenced  by  his  fondness  for  the  stage,  for 
which  he  wrote  several  tragedies  and  comedies.  His  illustrations 
to  Moli^re  are  marked  by  much  wit  and  grace,  and,  with  his 
slighter  genre  pictures,  have  more  interest  than  the  ambitious 
works  which  made  him  famous  in  his  day. 

The  style  of  Jouvenet  was  followed  by  his  nephew  Jean 
Eestout  (1692 — 1768),  whose  pictures  are  not  without  some 
charm,  due  to  a rare  skill  in  arrangement  and  judicious  harmony 
of  tone.  In  other  respects  they  are  as  mannered  as  those  of  his 
cotemporaries.  Eestout  never  visited  Eome,  and  his  Norman 
birth  betrays  itself  in  the  choice  and  treatment  of  his  figures. 
His  manner,  wanting  in  elevation,  but  with  a certain  fervour, 
was  best  adapted  for  sacred  subjects,  and  the  profusion  in 
which  he  produced  these  for  the  churches  of  Paris  was  no  doubt 


172 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


injurious  to  his  work.  Two  examples  are  preserved  in  the 
Louvre.  The  Ananias  placing  his  hands  on  St.  Paul,  a smaller 
reproduction  of  a picture  now  in  d7otre  Dame,  is  in  the  artist’s 
customary  manner;  the  Christ  healing  a Paralytic  shows  an 
effort  to  imitate  Lesueur. 

Eestout  transmitted  the  broad,  free  handling  of  Jouvenet  to 
his  pupil  Jean  Baptiste  Deshays  (1729 — 1765),  who  but  for 
his  early  death  might  have  risen  to  eminence.  As  it  is,  his 
works,  while  marked  by  greater  vigour  and  truth  of  sentiment 
than  those  of  his  cotemporaries,  betray  the  influence  of  Boucher 
(whose  daughter  he  married)  and  Yanloo,  and  generally  the 
defects  peculiar  to  the  age.  One  of  the  best  is  his  Martyrdom 
of  St.  Andreic,  in  the  Cathedral  of  Rouen. 

The  somewhat  monotonous  list  of  the  mannerists  is  closed  by 
Jean  Baptiste  Marie  Pierre  (1713 — 1789),  who,  with  much 
natural  fire,  grace,  and  facility,  followed  in  everything  the  fashion 
of  his  time.  Prom  d7atoire  he  learnt  his  picturesque  grouping 
and  brilliant  colouring.  At  Rome  he  studied  under  De  Troy,  and 
adopted  the  manner  of  the  Italian  decadence.  Besides  many 
pictures  for  the  churches  of  Paris,  he  assisted  iN’atoire  in  paint- 
ing the  Poundling  Chapel,  and  in  1742  painted  by  himself  an 
Assumption  of  the  Virgin  on  the  cupola  of  her  chapel  in  the 
church  of  St.  Roch.  The  composition  of  this  has  a good  effect. 
Pierre  also  painted  some  pleasing  landscapes,  and  his  etchings 
are  admirable  for  their  grace  and  spirit.  His  genre  pictures  too 
are  natural,  and  some  of  them,  such  as  the  Savoyards,  seem  to 
announce  Greuze,  Of  Pierre,  as  of  so  many  of  his  fellows,  it 
may. truly  be  said  that  in  a better  time  he  might  have  become  a 
great  artist.  But  Pierre  just  survived  to  witness  the  rise  of  the 
Davidian  School,  without  being  able  to  take  part  either  for  or 
against  it. 

Jean  Jacques  Bachelier  (1724 — 1806)  was  a pupil  of 
Pierre,  and  attained  some  excellence  as  a painter  of  animals  and 
flowers.  His  few  historical  pictures  are  now  forgotten.  The 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


173 


same  want  of  interest  attaches  to  the  larger  works  of  Nicholas 
Bernard  Lepicie  (1735 — 1784),  but  there  is  much  grace  and 
elegance  in  his  genre  pictures,  which  range  from  family  scenes 
resembling  those  of  Greuze  to  pastorals  in  the  style  of  Fragonard 
and  Loutherbourg. 

Jean  Baptiste  Leprince  (1733 — 1781)  adopted  the  style  of 
Boucher  and  Fragonard,  but  he  is  best  known  as  the  painter  of 
numerous  scenes  of  Eussian  life,  which,  taken  in  the  country 
itself,  are  striking  for  their  fidelity  and  picturesque  effect. 

Before  turning  to  those  artists  who  represent  the  lowest  depth 
of  the  decadence,  we  may  notice  some  genre  painters  who  were 
only  indirectly  influenced  by  their  age.  The  most  prominent  of 
these  was  the  marine  painter  Joseph  Yernet  (1714 — 1789). 
His  earliest  desire  was  to  paint  history,  but  the  sight  of  the  sea 
at  Marseilles,  as  he  was  on  his  way  to  Eome,  revealed  to  him  his 
true  vocation,  and  nearly  all  his  pictures  were  on  this  theme. 
After  a long  residence  in  the  latter  city,  where  he  studied  under 
Fergioni,  he  returned  to  Paris,  where,  besides  numerous  other 
works,  he  painted  for  Louis  XY.  the  celebrated  series  of  the 
ports  of  France  which  is  now  in  the  Louvre.  The  style  of 
Yernet  may  be  inferred  from  his  own  assertion,  that  “ while  many 
painters  surpassed  him  in  particular  details,  none  equalled  him 
in  making  a indurer  Composition,  in  fact,  was  his  great  merit. 
His  style  was  not  so  elevated  as  that  of  Claude,  but  with  more 
natural  simplicity  shows  also  more  variety  and  invention.  His 
early  works  had  something  of  the  roughness  of  Salvator  Eosa, 
but  his  later  manner  was  softer,  though  his  colouring  sometimes 
fails  in  richness,  finish,  and  transparency.  The  dramatic  interest 
of  his  pictures  is  much  enhanced  by  the  introduction  of  figures. 
These  are  never  the  gods  or  heroes  of  Poussin,  but  ordinary 
men  brought  face  to  face  with  the  powers  of  nature. 

The  merits  of  Yernet  were  allowed  even  by  the  unsparing 
criticism  of  David ; he  holds  an  honourable  place  apart,  neither 
influencing  nor  influenced  by  the  corrupt  taste  of  the  time. 


174 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


Charles  Parrocel  (1688 — 1752),  a pupil  of  Lafosse,  devoted 
himself  to  battle-painting,  and  followed  Louis  X\L  in  his  Flanders 
campaign.  His  few  remaining  works  show  the  influence  of  the 
Venetian  and  Flemish  colourists  ; in  general  style  they  recall 
sometimes  his  father,  J oseph  Parrocel,  sometimes  Le  Bourgignon 
and  Salvator  Eosa. 

Francois  Casanova,  a Venetian  hy  descent,  was  horn  in 
London  in  1730,  but  came  early  to  Paris,  and  passed  four  years 
at  Dresden  in  studying  the  works  of  Wouvermans.  In  his 
battle-pieces,  for  which  he  drew  on  his  imagination,  the  drawing 
was  often  faulty,  and  the  colouring  out  of  keeping  with  the 
subject,  hut  they  excelled  in  play  and  movement.  His  land- 
scapes and  familiar  scenes  were  either  cold  imitations  of  the 
Dutch  artist  Berghem,  or  more  spirited  attempts  in  the 
manner  of  Salvator  Eosa.  He  died  at  Briihl,  in  Austria,  in 
1805.  His  pupil, 

J acques  Philippe  Loutherbourg,  who  was  horn  at  Strashurg 
in  1740,  showed  much  the  same  qualities,  hut  allowed  his 
imagination  still  greater  play  in  a wide  variety  of  subjects,  such 
as  vehement  battles,  hunting  scenes,  or  landscapes  in  which 
the  physical  features  of  one  country  blended  with  those  of 
another.  His  animals,  however,  have  great  truth,  and  all  his 
incongruities  are  forgotten  in  the  charming  naivete  of  his  style, 
which  is  further  distinguished  hy  its  firm  touch  and  force  of 
colouring.  Much  of  his  life  was  spent  in  England,  wLere  he 
painted  scenes  for  the  theatre  and  dioramas,  and  in  1781  became 
a Eoyal  Academician.  He  died  in  1814,  and  was  buried  at 
Chiswick. 

In  portrait  painting,  the  earlier  half  of  the  eighteenth  century 
is  represented  by  the'  names  of  Jean  Marc  Hattier  (1685 — 
1766)  and  Louis  Tocque  (1696 — 1772).  Grace  and  harmony  of 
colour,  with  the  skill  to  confer  beauty  on  the  plainest  sitter,  were 
the  qualities  of  the  former,  and  naturally  made  him  the  fashion- 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


175 


able  painter  of  tlie  ladies  of  the  court,  who  loved  to  pose  before 
him  in  mythological  or  allegorical  guise.  Among  his  most  suc- 
cessful efforts  were  the  portraits  of  Marie  Leckzinska,  queen  of 
Louis  XV.,  and  Louise  Henriette  de  Bourbon  as  Hebe.  Tocque 
adhered  more  closely  to  nature.  His  portraits  have  no  special 
vigour,  but  are  marked  by  good  sense  and  truth  of  colour  and 
detail.  He  was  not  so  successful  in  rendering  the  character- 
istics of  his  royal  sitters,  as  those  of  individuals  distinguished 
in  public  life. 

A remarkable  success  in  crayon-portrait  was  attained  by 
Joseph  Vivien  (1657 — 1735),  whose  large  picture  of  the 
Electoral  Family  of  Bavaria  has  the  breadth  and  dignity  of  a 
composition  in  oil.  This  genre  was  still  further  improved,  and 
brought  to  a perfection  never  equalled  or  surpassed,  by  Maurice 
Quentin  de  Latour  (1704 — 1788).  His  power  of  life-like 

expression,  finish  and  harmony  of  tone,  are  finely  shown  in  the 
portrait  of  Madame  de  Pompadour  in  the  Louvre. 

Egbert  TournAres  (1668 — 1752),  a pupil  of  Bon  Boulogne, 
attained  success  in  two  directions.  His  portraits  have  fidelity, 
and  are  supple  in  touch  and  agreeable  in  colour.  Dihutodes 
tracing  the  Shadow  of  her  Lover  on  the  Wall,  in  the  Louvre,  is  a 
good  example  of  his  smaller  pictures  in  the  manner  of  Schalken 
and  Gerard  Dou,  which  are  remarkable  less  for  force  of  genius 
than  the  excessive  care  and  patience  spent  on  their  execution, 
and  the  skill  with  which  they  reproduce  effects  of  light  and 
shade. 

"Watteau  had  taken  for  his  theme  the  society  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  and  beneath  his  touch  it  became  poetical.  To  see  it  in 
its  bare  reality  w^e  must  look  to 

Francois  Boucher,  who  was  born  in  Paris  in  1704,  Baudouin, 
and  Fragonard.  The  works  of  these  artists  are  the  illustration 
of  the  words  of  Diderot,  wLen  he  talks  of  “ the  debasement 
of  painting  followung  step  by  step  on  that  of  morals.”  Purity 


176 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


and  decency  had  come  to  be  terms  void  of  meaning.  Libertinism 
and  debauchery  alone  were  understood.  As  for  nature,  it  was 
the  deliberate  opinion  of  Boucher  that  “ it  wanted  harmony  and 
seduction.” 

This  was  the  artist  whose  congenial  task  it  was  to  portray  the 
time  as  he  found  it,  and  who  abused  in  this  service  a brilliant 
imagination  and  an  almost  incredible  facility  and  industry. 
He  painted  everything,  from  religious  and  mythological  pictures 
to  scenes  of  fancy,  from  landscapes  and  pastorals  to  decorations 
for  the  opera.  One  theme,  however,  underlay  all  this  seeming 
variety — Love,  as  it  was  understood  in  the  boudoirs  of  Madame  de 
Pompadour  and  Madame  Dubarry,  and  represented  in  figures 
as  indecent  as  they  were  affected.  The  style  of  Boucher  was 
as  vicious  as  his  subjects.  It  was  that  of  a painter  who  has 
genius  but  uses  it  unworthily.  The  details,  drawn  mostly  from 
imagination,  are  executed  with  the  loosest  carelessness  and  in- 
accuracy ; the  figures  have  no  expression,  and,  whether  goddesses 
or  shepherdesses,  are  all  of  the  same  seductive  but  ignoble  type. 
Yet  the  artist  has  the  skill  to  throw  a grace  over  his  composition, 
and  to  charm  by  a touch  as  spirited  as  that  of  Watteau,  and  a 
colour  as  fresh  and  transparent  as  that  of  Eubens.  His  figures 
of  children  must  be  noticed  as  admirable.  There  is  also  great 
excellence  in  many  of  the  portraits  of  his  friend  and  patroness 
Madame  de  Pompadour,  who  condescended  to  engrave  several  of 
his  Avorks  with  her  OAvn  hand.  He  died,  first  painter  to  the  king, 
in  1770.  While  Boucher  painted  pleasure,  or  rather  debauchery, 

Pierre  Antoine  Baudouin  (1723 — 1769),  who  married  his 
daughter,  Avas  known,  even  in  a corrupt  age,  as  the  painter  of 
“ libertinism.”  He  sometimes,  however,  chose  idyllic  subjects 
Avhich  were  “almost  decent.”  Painting  only  in  watercolours, 
and  confining  himself  to  miniature,  Baudouin  produced  pictures 
Avhich,  without  even  the  semblance  of  good  taste,  are  spirited 
and  delicate  in  execution,  happy  in  composition,  and  sparkling  in 
their  general  effect. 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


177 


Bouclier  was  only  just  dead  when  his  pupil  Jean  Honore 
Fragonard  (1732 — 1806)  returned  from  his  second  visit  to  Italy. 
Fragonard  had  also  learnt  much  from  Chardin,  while  in  Italy 
his  attention  had  been  divided  between  studying  nature  and  the 
masters  of  the  seventeenth  century,  especially  Tiepolo. 

Susceptible  to  many  influences  but  faithful  to  none,  Fragonard 
sums  up,  in  the  wonderful  diversity  of  his  work,  the  whole  genius 
of  the  eighteenth  century.  The  diversity,  it  is  true,  argued 
weakness,  not  strength.  His  nature  inclined  him  to  the  frivolous 
side  of  things.  In  spite  of  Italy  he  remained  true  to  Boucher. 
His  larger  historical  or  sacred  works  need  not  be  taken  into 
account.  He  put  his  real  strength  into  pictures  which  sometimes 
rivalled  Watteau  for  their  touch  and  their  poetry,  sometimes 
equalled  the  worst  delinquencies  of  Boucher.  How  again  he 
imitated  the  interiors  of  Chardin,  or  painted  landscapes  as 
luminous  as  those  of  Buysdael.  His  copies  of  the  old  masters 
showed  wonderful  skill;  his  miniatures  had  a special  grace. 
Exquisite  grace  and  magic  of  chiaroscuro  were  in  fact  the  dis- 
tinctive features  of  his  style.  They  may  be  seen  in  his  Foun- 
tain of  Love,  a picture  which  also  shows  his  unequalled  skill  in 
representing  allegory,  not  by  abstract  figures,  but  by  the  action 
of  living  persons.  Himself  contributing  to  the  decadence, 
Fragonard  lived  long  enough  to  see  it  give  way  before  the  reforms 
of  David.  Without  sympathizing  much  with  the  new  tenden- 
cies, he  could  not  help  feeling  influenced  by  them,  and  it  was  in 
this  spirit  that  he  produced  such  pictures  as  his  Happy  Mother, 
and  a few  others  of  similar  character. 

The  reform  of  painting  in  France  would  appear,  at  first 
sight,  to  have  sprung  up  suddenly  at  the  bidding  of  a single  man  ; 
but  although  deservedly  associated  with  the  name  of  David,  it 
was  in  reality  due  to  principles  which  had  been  slowly  gather- 
ing ground,  and  which  he  was  only  the  first  to  bring  to  their 
full  development.  Before  considering  the  circumstances  which 
combined  to  give  a peculiar  direction  to  David’s  efforts,  we  must 

SP  N 


I 


La  Fontaine.  By  Jean  Baptiste  Chakdin.  />i  the  Collection  of  M.  Mavcillc, 


PAINTIXG  IN  FRANCE. 


179 


notice  some  artists  who  prepared  the  way  for  him,  and  helped 
to  make  his  success  possible,  by  keeping  to  truth  and  nature 
when  the  rest  of  the  world  despised  them. 

Chardin,  Greuze,  and  Vien  each  in  his  own  way  protested 
against  the  affectation  and  baseness  of  cotemporary  art.  hTature 
in  its  simplest  reality,  yet  touched  with  humour  and  instinctive 
grace,  and  interpreted  with  a rare  honesty  of  execution,  is  the 
distinctive  theme  in  the  interiors  and  still-life  pieces  of 

Jean  Baptiste  Chardin  (1699 — 1779).  While  the  Eestouts 
and  Bouchers  were  exaggerating  Jouvenet’s  manner  in  their 
search  for  vulgar  effect,  he  was  remarkable  for  his  sure  and  mellow 
touch  and  solid  impasto,  not  less  than  for  his  harmonious  colour 
and  skilful  chiaroscuro ; while  they  were  endeavouring  to  combine 
confused' masses  of  figures  and  draperies  into  an  artificial  whole, 
he  was  studiously  simple  in  composition,  and  yet  each  object  in 
his  pictures  seems  to  have  its  appropriate  place  and  character. 
Chardin  was  followed,  but  with  less  force  and  seriousness,  by 
Etienne  Jeaurat  (1699 — 1789). 

Jean  Baptiste  Greuze  (1725 — 1805)  was  ‘‘the  first,”  says 
Diderot,  “ who  thought  of  introducing  morality  into  art.”  And 
on  the  whole  this  is  what  justly  entitles  him  to  the  name  of 
reformer.  As  an  artist  he  was  not  wholly  original.  His  attempt  to 
become  a historical  painter  failed  utterly,  and  the  influence  he 
eventually  exercised  was  due  to  the  sentiment  and  character  of 
his  work  as  much  as  to  its  artistic  merit.  The  Father  explainwrf 
the  Bible  to  his  Children,  the  Village  Bridegroom,  the  Father's 
Curse  were  all  scenes  of  simple  bourgeois  life,  and  as  such 
strongly  contrasted  with  the  works  of  the  day.  They  were 
suggested  to  the  painter  by  the  dramas  of  Diderot,  and  their 
origin  explains  some  of  their  faults. . They  are  often  melodramatic 
though  powerful  in  expression,  as  well  as  unequal  in  execution, 
nor  does  the  artist  ever  attain  to  the  poetic  and  the  ideal  in 
his  treatment  of  them.  At  the  same  time  they  show  his 
constant  study  of  nature,  and  if  his  actors  are  lowly,  he  has 

N 2 


180 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


known  how  to  invest  them  with  grace  and  to  dignify  them  by 
passion.  Greuze  could  not  escape  the  tendencies  of  his  time. 
His  morality  is  allied  with  an  imagination  that  tends  to  the 
impure,  and  adapts  itself  too  lightly  to  his  ardent  appreciation 
of  beauty.  A critic  has  well  compared  his  sentiment  to  that  of 
Sterne.  It  is  most  apparent  in  his  single  figures  of  girls,  whether 
represented  as  simple  studies  or  as  weeping  over  a broken  pitcher 
or  a dead  bird.  In  these  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  figure  belongs 
to  a woman,wliile  the  head  is  that  of  a child;  and  this  incongruity 
in  tlie  form  finds  its  analogy  in  the  expression,  in  which  the 
longing  or  regret  of  a maturer  age  seems  to  conflict  with  the 
unconscious  innocence  of  childhood.  Heither  Chardin  nor 
Greuze  can  be  said  to  have  risen  above  the  level  of  genre 
painters.  A higher  ground  was  taken  by 

Joseph  Marie  Vien  (1716 — 1809),  with  whom  first  arose  the 
idea  of  “combining  the  study  of  nature  with  that  of  the  antique.” 
His  genius,  indeed,  was  not  adequate  to  the  fulfilment  of  his 
theory,  and  led  him  into  constant  aberrations  of  style,  but  it  is 
this  pursuit  of  a higher  standard  in  art  which  it  was  not  given 
him  to  attain  that  makes  him  the  link  between  the  Decadence 
and  the  Eeform.  He  had  no  imagination,  and  his  feeling  for  the 
antique  scarcely  went  beyond  a vague  aspiration.  Thus  his  best 
attempts  show  truthfulness  and  intelligence  rather  than  elevation, 
and  his  purely  pagan  subjects  are  feeble  in  form  and  without  real 
grace.  Sometimes  too  he  showed  a strange  readiness  to  fall 
into  the  worst  style  of  Lemoine,  or  of  his  master  Hatoire. 
The  Sleeping  Hermit^  in  the  Louvre,  is  perhaps  an  example 
of  the  work  in  which  his  powers  found  their  truest  if  humble 
scope;  it  is  “nature  truthfully  seen  and  truthfully  rendered.” 
This  adherence  to  tlie  simple  truth  of  nature,  of  which  Vien 
so  patiently  set  the  example,  was  not  without  its  effect  on 
art,  and  remains  his  greatest  merit  on  the  side  of  execution; 
but  his  real  fame  must  be  sought  in  his  influence  as  a teacher, 
and  his  highest  praise  is  that  he  was  the  master  of  David. 


The  A^illage  Bridegeoom.  By  Greuze. 


182 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


With  the  name  of  Vien  must  he  associated,  in  this  connection 
that  of  Pierre  Peyron  (1744 — 1820),  now  undeservedly  for- 
gotten, whose  pictures  in  the  Louvre  breathe  the  true  Roman  spirit, 
and  to  whom  David  himself  acknowledged  his  indebtedness. 

In  alluding  to  his  own  initiatives  of  reform,  Vien  had  said, 
“ I have  only  unlocked  the  door  ; it  is  M.  David  who  will  throw 
it  wide  open.”  It  is  to  David  then  we  must  turn  to  find  the 
reform  fully  accomplished. 

DAVID  AND  THE  REFORM  OF  PAINTING. 

At  the  birth  of  Jacques  Louis  David,  in  1748,  the  corrupt 
influence  of  Boucher  was  at  its  height,  nor  did  any  improvement 
then  seem  probable.  Yet  between  1748  and  1778  there  were 
causes  at  work  favourable  to  change.  The  class  of  the  bour- 
geoisie to  whom  Chardin  and  Greuze  had  appealed  was  now 
beginning  to  attain  importance  ; the  society  which  alone  had 
made  a vicious  art  possible  was  growing  weary  of  its  license, 
and  under  the  influence  of  the  ideas  spread  by  the  writings  of 
Voltaire,  Rousseau,  and  Diderot,  men’s  minds  were  becoming 
dimly  conscious  of  new  hopes  and  aspirations.  In  politics, 
society,  and  art  everything  was  ready  for  a strong  reaction. 
David  was  not  at  first  aware  of  the  current  of  the  times,  or  cer- 
tain of  his  own  aims.  He  began,  by  a strange  coincidence,  as 
the  pupil  of  Boucher.  The  honourable  feeling  of  that  master, 
who  perceived  the  power  of  his  pupil,  soon  caused  his  transfer 
to  the  guidance  of  Vien,  hut  David  had  to  pass  through  sore 
hardships  and  discouragements  before  gaining  the  prize  of  Rome 
with  Antioclius  and  Stratonice  in  1775. 

Rome,  whither  he  went  in  this  year  with  Vien,  first  gave 
definite  shape  to  his  ideas.  It  was  here  that  antiquity,  after 
a long  oblivion,  was  once  more  engaging  the  public  attention. 
The  excavation  of  Pompeii  in  1755  had  given  a fresh  impulse 
to  the  study  of  the  past.  Canova  was  meditating  the  reform  of 
sculpture.  Winckelman,  by  his  ‘ Treatise  on  Art,’  was  awaking 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


183 


entlmsiasm  for  the  ideals  of  Greek  beauty,  and  the  criticisms 
of  Lessing  were  aiding  to  spread  his  doctrines.  Such  were  the 
influences  already  paramount  when  David,  not  yet  free  from 
his  early  teaching,  found  himself  face  to  face  with  the  wonders 
of  the  Vatican,  and  set  to  work  to  copy  bas-reliefs,  ancient 
statues,  and  the  best  Italian  masters.  The  results  of  his  inde- 
cision were  apparent  in  two  pictures ; a copy  of  the  Last 
Suppe?'  of  Valentin,  whose  vigorous  truth  appealed  strongly 
to  one  side  of  his  genius,  and  the  Plague  of  Sf.  Rocli,  painted 
in  1780,  after  his  return  to  Paris,  the  manifesto,  as  it  were, 
of  his  new  principles.  Somewhat  stiff  and  theatrical,  it  im- 
presses us  not  so  much  as  the  work  of  a painter  who  is  swayed 
by  an  overmastering  ideal,  as  of  one  who  repeats  a lesson  he  has 
just  learnt  by  heart.  Still,  in  it  might  be  read  the  intention 
of  the  artist  to  break  away  from  every-day  life  and  seek  for 
simplicity  and  dignity  in  the  antique. 

As  David’s  style  matured,  another  impulse  came  to  add  weight 
and  unity  to  his  aims.  Patriotism  was  the  watchword  of  the 
day,  and  where  could  brighter  examples  be  found  for  its  illus- 
tration than  in  the  histories  of  Greece  and  Pome  1 Henceforth 
it  was  the  prevailing  motive  in  David’s  work.  It  inspired  the 
Horatii,  which,  painted  in  1784,  shows  his  style  definitely 
formed  with  all  its  excellences  and  defects.  The  attitudes  are 
theatrical,  the  faces  feeble  or  exaggerated  in  expression,  but  the 
correctness  of  the  drawing  and  beauty  of  the  forms  are  striking, 
and  the  whole  picture,  especially  when  compared  with  cotem- 
porary paintings,  has  an  antique  nobleness  and  simplicity.  The 
Death  of  Socrates  and  the  Brutus  also  belong  to  this  time,  and 
present  on  the  whole  the  same  characteristics.  The  execution,  as 
too  often  with  the  artist,  may  be  noticed  as  not  in  harmony  with 
the  severity  of  the  subjects.  It  is  affected  and  minutely  elaborate. 

During  the  Pevolution  David  became  a dictator  in  art,  in 
which  character  he  instituted in  grotesque  imitation  of  the 
antique.  To  this  period  belong  the  unfinished  sketch  of  the 


184 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


Oaili  in  the  Tennis  Court — in  which  the  figures  were  first  drawn 
as  statues,  and  the  dress  painted  over  them — the  Last  Moments 
of  Lepelletier,  and  the  Death  of  Marat,  The  two  latter  are 
remarkable  for  their  vigorous  truth  to  nature. 

Imprisoned  on  the  fall  of  Eobespierre,  David,  after  his  release, 
devoted  himself  solely  to  painting,  and  produced  the  Sabine 
Women  and  Leonidas,  which  may  serve  to  com23lete  the  idea  of 
his  style.  The  composition  of  the  first  is  disordered,  the  chiar- 
oscuro defective,  and  the  forms,  in  violation  of  historic  keeping, 
effeminate  and  affected.  Eomulus  and  Tatius  raise  their  spears 
for  the  combat.  Hersilia  separates  them.  Other  Sabine  women, 
with  children  in  their  arms,  rush  in  between  the  contending 
armies.  The  actors  give  no  idea  of  movement,  but  stand  as  if 
to  be  looked  at.  The  Leonidas  is  warmer  in  tone,  and  better 
in  keeping.  In  both  pictures  the  merit  must  be  sought  in 
the  fine  drawing  and  beauty  of  single  figures,  especially  in 
the  case  of  children.  For  Napoleon,  by  whom  he  was  highly 
honoured,  David  painted  the  Distribution  of  the  Eagles  and 
tlie  Coronation,  now  at  Versailles.  The  former  is  monotonous, 
and  fails  in  perspective.  The  latter,  grand  in  composition, 
and  faithful  as  regards  costume,  is  cold  in  general  effect,  and 
shows  how  defective  was  the  artist’s  feeling  for  colour  and 
chiaroscuro.  In  1816,  after  the  second  Eestoration,  David 
retired  to  Brussels,  and  died  there  in  1825. 

The  influence  exercised  by  David  was  profound  not  only  in 
France,  but  in  Europe  generally.  F<>r  nearly  fifty  years  it  more 
or  less  dominated  painting.  In  asking  whether  his  reform  was 
successful  in  its  aims  and  salutary  in  its  results,  it  is  necessary 
to  see  clearly  where  his  real  merits  and  defects  lay.  David, 
then,  like  Poussin — with  whom  he  claims  to  be  compared — 
turned  for  inspiration  to  pagan  models,  and  even  went  beyond 
Poussin  in  altogether  refusing  to  undertake  Christian  subjects. 
But  his  inferiority  to  his  great  predecessor  is  at  once  seen  in  his 
different  way  of  approaching  antiquity.  Poussin  might  almost 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


be  called  “ a strayed  ancient.”  He  was  drawn  to  the  antique 
models  because  there  was  somethin in  his  own  mind  akin  to 

O 


tlie  antique  spirit,  and  his  strong  and  varied  genius,  under  these 
congenial  conditions,  produced  works  that  will  always  remain 


Thk  S.VI51XE  I'.Y  Jacques  Louis  David.  In  the  Louvre. 


186 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


great,  always  command  a certain  interest,  in  spite  of  all  revolu- 
tions in  taste.  But  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  that  the  pictures  of 
David — considered  in  themselves — will  ever  possess  more  than  a 
historical  interest.  They  are,  in  fact,  as  false  and  theatrical  in 
their  way  as  much  of  the  painting  which  they  supplanted,  and 
here  we  begin  to  see  David’s  great  defect.  His  own  motto  was, 
“Truth  first,  and  beauty  afterwards  ; ” by  which  he  meant  that 
we  must  first  go  to  nature,  in  order  to  get  free  from  all  conven- 
tions, and  in  the  next  place  study  the  masterpieces  of  the  past, 
in  order  to  discover  the  unchanging  principles  of  beauty  in 
virtue  of  which  they  were  produced.  That  David  had  this 
sentiment  for  nature,  and  could,  when  he  allowed  himself  to  do 
so,  follow  its  promptings,  he  has  shown  conclusively  in  certain 
works,  such  as  the  celebrated  portrait  of  Pope  Pius  VII.,  the 
Death  of  Lepelletier,  and  Napoleon  crossing  the  Alps.  Unfor- 
tunately, his  enthusiasm  seduced  him  in  practice  from  his  own 
sound  principles.  In  his  desire  to  escape  altogether  from  what 
he  deemed  base  or  vulgar,  he  turned  exclusively  to  ancient  art, 
which,  by  a further  error — arising  from  inadequate  taste  and 
culture — he  identified  with  certain  of  the  less  perfect  ancient 
statues.  He  thus  missed  the  real  spirit  and  beauty  of  his 
models,  and  passed  the  limits  that  separate  painting  from  sculp- 
ture. His  figures  have  a stilted  dignity  in  place  of  life  and 
movement,  conventional  traits  instead  of  individual  expression. 
Above  all — and  here  again  he  contrasts  strongly  with  Poussin 
— in  emulating  the  cold  impassiveness  of  marble  he  allowed  his 
execution  to  become  timid  and  vacillating,  instead  of  adapting  it 
with  masterly  variety  to  the  subject,  while  for  the  same  reason  be 
despised  the  harmonies  of  colour  and  the  play  of  light  and  shade. 

The  one  great  technical  excellence  of  David  was  his  severe 
and  correct  drawing.  This  he  earnestly  inculcated  as  well  as 
practised ; and  this,  with  the  nobler  ideal  which  he  introduced 
into  art,  gives  him  his  right  to  the  title  of  reformer.  He  put  to 
flight  once  for  all  the  indecency  which  had  disgraced  painting 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


187 


and  by  thus  emancipating  it,  opened  indirectly  new  paths  for 
its  activity  of  which  he  himself  never  dreamed.  His  defects, 
though  copied  by  many  imitators,  were  not  permanently  injuri- 
ous to  art ; his  severe  drawing — the  thing  above  all  others  most 
needed  at  the  time — persisted,  even  in  the  works  of  those  who 
differed  widely  from  him  in  principle.  And  this  leads  us  to 
notice  by  no  means  the  least  excellent  quality  of  David — his 
care  to  develop  the  natural  tendencies  of  his  pupils,  instead  of 
forcing  them  to  follow  his  style  implicitly.  This  teaching  was 
attended  with  remarkable  results,  for — in  contrast  to  his  servile 
imitators — David’s  own  pupils  were  remarkable  for  their  bold 
originality.  The  one  by  whom  he  was  most  strictly  followed  was 
Guillaume  Guillon  LExmhRE  (1760 — 1832),  whose  works 
are  almost  forgotten.  He  was  born  at  Guadeloupe,  but  went 
very  early  to  Paris,  where  his  natural  warmth  and  energy  were 
at  first  fostered  by  the  teaching  of  Doyen.  This  manner, 
however,  he  lost  on  becoming  a pupil  of  David,  whom  he  out- 
Heroded  in  his  rigid  adherence  to  the  antique.  Devoid  of  any 
sentiment  for  nature,  his  sole  aim  was  to  “ paint  sculpture,”  and 
his  efforts  were  thus  necessarily  confined  to  the  representation  of 
Greek  or  Eoman  scenes.  The  Brutus  and  the  Virginia  now  in 
the  Louvre  were  Lethi^re’s  chief  works.  The  composition  of 
the  former,  while  theatrical  in  parts,  is  good  on  the  whole,  and 
the  colour  is  warm.  The  whole  picture  produces  a solemn  and 
tragic  effect,  but  the  figures  do  not  show  the  fine  feeling  for  form 
of  David.  The  Virginia  is  more  confused  in  composition,  and 
more  theatrical.  Lethi^re  was  for  ten  years  director  of  the 
school  at  Rome,  and  devoted  all  his  tact  and  energy,  although  in 
vain,  to  maintain  the  principles  of  David,  in  their  extreme  form, 
against  the  romanticism  of  Gros.  David  also  communicated 
much  of  his  spirit  to  his  favourite  pupil, 

Jean  Germain  Drouais  (1763 — 1788),  whose  Christ  and  the 
Canaanitish  Woman,  and  Marius,  in  the  Louvre,  show  astonish- 
ing force,  with  many  defects  attributable  to  youtli.  Drouais 


188 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


died  at  Eome,  at  the  outset  of  his  career,  a victim  to  his  zeal 
for  work. 

Francois  Gerard,  le  baron,  (1770 — 1837,)  one  of  David’s 
most  noted  pupils,  diverged  freely  from  his  master,  but  without 
showing  any  high  originality.  A childhood  passed  in  Eome 
may  have  disposed  him  at  first  to  David’s  teaching,  and  his 
touching  picture  of  Belisarius,  exhibited  in  1795,  was  in  the 
classic  style.  It  is  free  in  execution,  correct  in  drawing,  and 
vigorous  in  colour.  His  next  picture,  the  well-known  Psyche, 
in  the  Louvre,  was  less  successful.  It  is  inanimate,  and  its 
refinement  borders  on  affectation.  The  colouring  is  cold,  and 
the  form  without  precision.  This  failure  made  the  artist  turn 
to  portrait,  a field  in  which  he  became  the  “painter  of  kings,” 
and  (in  his  friends’  opinion)  the  “ king  of  painters.”  His  best 
portraits,  of  which  that  of  Isabey,  in  the  Louvre,  is  an  admirable 
example,  were  those  painted  before  1800,  when  reputation  had 
made  him  careless.  They  reproduce  nature  simply,  without 
ostentation  or  vulgarity.  The  colouring,  firm  in  the  heads,  is 
freer  in  the  accessories,  and  the  scene  is  so  treated  as  to  bring 
out  the  character  of  the  sitter.  Napoleon,  Josephine,  and  Louis 
XVIII.,  besides  a host  of  illustrious  foreigners,  were  among  the 
later  sitters  of  Gerard.  For  Napoleon  he  also  painted  Austerlitz, 
which  is  interesting  only  for  its  portraits,  but  the  four  allegorical 
figures  in  the  Louvre,  by  which  the  picture  was  supported,  may 
be  cited  as  showing  some  approach  to  grandeur  of  invention. 
Lut  the  best  qualities  of  the  artist  are  shown  in  his  last  great  pic- 
l.iire  and  masterpiece,  also  in  the  Louvre — the  Entry  of  Henry  IV. 
into  Paris.  The  skill  shown  in  the  various  physiognomies,  the 
picturesque  accessories,  and  the  well-arranged  groups,  all  indi- 
cate the  cold  and  clear  judgment  which,  rather  than  genius, 
characterize  Gerard.  If,  after  David’s  death,  he  seemed  supreme 
in  art,  it  was  by  judiciously  following  the  public  taste,  not  by 
leading  it.  David  had  not  been  entirely  without  rivals  in  the 
path  of  reform.  There  were  others  who  had  felt  the  stirring 


I 

»< 


r 


The  Entp.y  of  Henri  IV.  into  Paris,  ]'  i 

In  the  Louvi  ] 


[ 22m>,  l.'Ol.  J)Y  Ki:AYroi-  Cki;ai:I>. 
'To.  22r».  ; 


XKtijc,  188, 


I 


% 


) 

''Tii 


f 


I 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


169 


of  the  same  ideas,  but  who  were  affected  by  them  in  a different 
manner. 

Jean  Baptiste  Regnault  (1754 — 1829),  the  most  important 
of  these,  was  fortunate  in  escaping,  while  young,  the  influence 
of  Boucher’s  school.  Taken  by  his  father,  when  only  ten 
years  old,  to  America,  he  served  for  four  years  in  a merchant 
vessel,  and  made  two  visits  to  Rome — the  last  time  as  pensioner 
of  the  Academy — before  finally  settling  at  Paris  in  1782.  At 
Rome  his  drawing  was  correct,  flowing,  and  not  without  charm  ; 
but  the  first  picture  in  which  his  style  assumed  definite  char- 
acter was  the  Education  of  Achilles,  in  the  Louvre,  which  was 
suggested  by  a drawing  at  Herculaneum. 

Regnault  was  the  forerunner  of  Ingres  and  Delacroix.  His 
system  was  a protest  against  the  sheer  classicism  of  David.  He 
leant  to  antiquity,  hut  he  aimed  at  keeping  strictly  within  the 
limits  that  separate  sculpture  from  painting,  and  he  sought  to 
mitigate  the  severity  of  David’s  forms  by  calling  in  the  aid  of 
colour  and  the  freer  grace  of  nature.  The  attempt  was  above 
Ins  powers,  but  it  was  a step  in  the  right  direction.  As  it  was, 
his  qualities  of  clearness  and  simplicity  produced  excellent, 
though  not  the  highest,  results.  The  Descent  from  the  Cross 
(Louvre),  painted  some  years  after  the  Achilles,  is  quite  aca- 
demic in  style,  and  the  Three  Graces,  which  the  artist  exhibited 
with  two  other  pictures  as  a protest  against  the  Sabines  of  David, 
adheres  too  closely  to  nature,  and  is  elegant  without  being  noble. 

Regnault’s  historical  and  allegorical  pictures  may  be  briefly 
referred  to  as  forming  a striking  commentary  on  the  vicissitudes  of 
the  times,  and  the  rapid  changes  of  feeling  which  they  induced. 
Under  Louis  XVI.  he  painted  the  Acceptation  of  the  Constitu- 
turn;  under  the  Convention,  a cold  allegory  called  Liberty  or 
Death ; ivhile  the  Triumphant  March  of  Napoleon  to  the 
Temple  of  Immortality — in  which  some  imitation  of  Prud’hon 
Avas  manifested — was  re-christened  by  the  artist,  in  the  time  of 
the  Bourbons,  France  in  a Tnumphal  Car  advancing  towards 


190 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


the  Temple  of  Peace.  Something  of  the  grace  and  clearness  of 
Eegnaiilt’s  style  reappeared  in  his  pupil  Louis  Hersent  (1777 
— 1860),  whose  early  attachment  to  the  principles  of  David 
was  followed  hy  a complete  revolt  to  the  modern  style.  His 
Gustavus  Wasa  inaugurated  the  historic  genre  of  Delaroche, 
and  he  also  succeeded  Gerard  as  a successful  portrait  painter. 
Eegnault  was  supported  in  his  opposition  to  David  by  another 
of  the  great  man’s  pupils, 

Pierre  Harcisse  Guerin,  le  haron,  horn  in  Paris  in  1774. 
But  Guerin  was  not  one  to  inaugurate  a new  style.  His  talent, 
refined  and  delicate,  hut  without  spontaneity,  owed  such  strength 
as  it  had  to  reading  and  meditation.  His  imagination  could 
conceive  of  no  other  models  than  statues,  and  he  studied  action 
not  in  nature,  hut  on  the  stage  of  the  theatre.  He  is  represented 
from  first  to  last  in  his  works  at  the  Louvre,  and  in  all  of  them 
artifice  is  too  apparent.  The  Marcus- Sextus,  painted  at  Paris  in 
1799,  before  he  had  been  to  Pome,  is  one  of  the  most  striking, 
hut  the  simple  and  masculine  composition  is  spoilt  hy  the  cold 
and  timid  execution,  which  gives  the  appearance  of  sculpture 
to  the  chief  figure.  In  the  Phmdra  and  Hippolytus,  and  in  the 
Andromache  and  Pyrrhus,  calculation  and  artifice  are  more 
marked  ; they  look  like  scenic  effects  ; still  the  latter  shows  an 
effort  to  attain  a freer  style.  The  Dido  and  the  Chjtemnestra 
were  his  latest  works.  The  former,  in  its  ingenuity  of  execution 
and  diaphanous  effect  of  light,  descends  to  prettiness.  The  flesh, 
too,  has  that  porcelain  tone  peculiar  to  Guerin.  The  Clytem- 
nestra  is  perhaps  his  best  work.  It  is  calculated  even  to  the 
effect  of  the  purple  light  spread  hy  the  curtain,  hut  the  artist 
has  for  once  succeeded  in  expressing  real  pathos  in  the  face  of 
the  heroine. 

Guerin  died  in  1833  at  Pome,  which  he  had  visited  several 
times.  Like  David,  he  stimulated  the  genius  of  several  pupils 
most  uulike  himself.  Antiquity — seen  in  yet  another  aspect — 
also  furnished  inspiration  to  a remarkable  artist, 


riliEDIlA  AND  HiPPOLYTUS.  By  GU^RIN.  1>1  tU  LoUWC. 


192 


PAINTING  IN  PRANCE. 


Pierre  Paul  Prud’hon  (born  in  1758,  died  in  1823).  The 
son  of  a poor  mason,  Prud’hon  gained  his  first  impressions 
of  painting  from  some  pictures  in  the  Abbey  of  Cluny,  where 
he  was  brought  up,  and  after  some  years  in  Dijon  and  Paris, 
succeeded  in  1782  in  visiting  Eome.  Here  Eaphael  and 
Coreggio  were  among  the  masters  he  deeply  studied,  and  he 
owed  much  to  the  friendship  of  Canova.  Compelled  by  poverty, 
after  his  return  to  Paris,  to  produce  illustrations,  miniatures,  and 
small  chalk  drawings,  Prud’hon  showed  even  in  these  his 
powerful  manner,  and  in  1799  a design  of  Truth  descending 
from  Heaven  and  led  hy  Wisdom,  for  a ceiling  at  St.  Cloud,  at 
length  brought  him  into  notice.  Both  in  subject  and  character 
it  was  typical  of  the  artist’s  best  work.  Mythology  and  alle- 
gory were  the  fields  in  which  his  genius  found  freest  play.  He 
viewed  the  antique  through  a dreamy  melancholy  which  invested 
it  with  an  exquisite  grace,  tenderness,  and  poetry.  The  Justice 
and  Divine  Vengeance  pursuing  Crime,  in  the  Louvre,  is  a good 
example  of  this  allegorical  style,  which  is  poetical,  never  frigid. 
The  Abduction  of  Psyche,  painted  about  the  same  time,  is 
remarkable  for  pure,  unstudied  beauty  of  form  and  winning 
grace.  The  latter  quality  is  also  remarkably  shown  in  his 
Zephyr  swinging,  and  Cupid  caressing  his  Victim. 

Towards  the  close  of  his  life  Prud’hon  painted  the  Distressed 
Family,  which  had  been  sketched  by  his  favourite  pupil, 
Mademoiselle  Meyer — in  which  he  showed  that  he  could  represent 
a pathetic  scene  taken  from  actual  life — and  also  some  sacred 
pictures,  of  which  the  Assumption,  in  the  Louvre,  is  an  instance. 
But  in  these,  as  in  strictly  historical  subjects,  his  success  was  but 
partial.  They  did  not  allow  scope  enough  for  that  dreamy  and 
poetic  fancy  which  seems  to  be  connected  so  closely  with  the 
unsurpassed  grace  of  his  style.  His  contours  have  a distinctive 
vagueness,  as  if  to  harmonize  them  with  his  thought ; and  the 
same  principle  may  be  traced  in  the  haziness  of  his  landscape 
backgrounds,  which  lend  themselves  admirably  to  the  effect 


CuriD  Cakessixg  his  Victim.  By  Bhud’iiox. 


.<^r 


194 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


intended  to  be  produced  by  the  figures.  Thus,  if  lie  is  to  be 
lield  inferior  to  David  in  drawing,  he  rises  far  above  him  in 
sentiment,  while  he  also  excels  him  in  the  firmness  and  con- 
sistence of  his  touch. 

A new  note  was  struck  by  Xavier  Sigalon  (1788 — 1837), 
who  after  painting  at  Ximes  came  to  Paris,  and  studied  for  a 
time  with  Guerin.  Sigalon’s  robust  originality  broke  lightly 
through  conventional  rules.  In  the  Courtesan,  a work  of 
Venetian  breadth  and  richness  of  colouring,  the  artist’s  poAver 
tbough  marked  is  subdued  ; but  his  Locusta  trying  on  a Slave 
the  Poison  destined  for  Britannicus,  painted  shortly  after,  was  as 
bold  a protest  against  the  principles  of  David  as  Delacroix’s 
Massacre  of  Scio.  The  repulsive  form  of  the  poisoner  and  the 
slave  writhing  in  agony  are  drawn  with  an  almost  brutal  force, 
in  Avhich  no  effort  is  apparent  to  elevate  or  tone  down  the  bare 
horror  of  natui’e.  The  St.  Jerome,  which  Avith  the  Courtesan 
is  now  in  the  Louvre,  is  conceived  in  the  spirit  of  Eibera.  For 
boldness  of  touch  and  masculine  vigour  of  form  it  is  perhaps 
the  artist’s  masterpiece.  Sigalon’s  last  Avork  Avas  a copy  of 
iMichelangelo’s  Last  Judgment.  It  is  noAV  in  the  chapel  of 
the  School  of  Fine  Arts,  and  is  as  strong  a testimony  to  the 
poAvers  of  the  artist  as  his  original  paintings. 

In  Anne  Louis  Gtrodet  de  Eoucy  Trioson  (1767 — 1824) 
a desire  to  be  original  leads  to  eccentricity.  His  wmrks  shoAV 
laborious  care  and  a feeling  for  antique  form,  but  are  often 
conceived  in  a spirit  bordering  on  the  fanciful  or  grotesque. 
Of  the  former  kind  is  the  Sleeping  Endymion,  in  the  Louvre, 
the  figure  of  Avhich  is  taken  from  a bas-relief.  Here  there  is  a 
touch  of  poetry  in  the  beams  which,  falling  on  the  sleeper, 
Typify  the  Avooing  of  the  moon.  The  fancy  becomes  more 
dreamlike  in  Ossian  and  his  Warriors  receiving  the  Shades  of 
French  Warriors,  a picture  which  provoked  the  cold  criticism 
of  David  that  he  aagts  “ no  judge  of  such  painting.”  But  for 
exaggerated  horror,  carried  almost  to  the  verge  of  the  ludicrous. 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


195 


tliere  is  nothing  to  equal  the  Deluge,  in  the  Louvre.  The 
figures  are  drawn  with  force  and  truth  of  anatomy,  hut  this 
does  not  redeem  the  error  in  composition,  wliich  gives  the 
effect  of  a detached  group  instead  of  a complete  picture. 
A whole  family  are  represented  hanging  one  from  the  other, 
and  only  saved  from  destruction  by  tlie  topmost  of  the 
chain,  who  just  grasps  a breaking  tree.  Girodet  attained  to  a 
truer  style  in  the  Burial  of  At  ala,  wliich  is  simple  and 
touching,  and  in  the  Revolt  of  Cairo  he  has  caught  some  of 
the  animation  Avhich  gave  their  force  and  freshness  to  the 
battles  of  Gros. 

ISTeither  Kegnault  nor  any  of  the  painters  just  mentioned, 
though  they  asserted  their  independence  Avitli  success,  had  sup- 
planted David  or  formed  schools  whicli  could  rival  his.  His 
reform  had  had  astonishing  success,  but  its  wmrk  was  done,  and 
now  it  required  itself  to  be  reformed.  People  began  to  grow 
tired  of  the  “ race  of  Agamemnon,'^’  so  stiff  and  antiquated  in 
form  and  feature,  and  to  look  for  painting  which  should  be  more 
directly  inspired  by  life  and  nature,  more  in  consonance  with  the 
spirit  of  the  time. 

Out  of  this  reaction  gradually  arose  Eomanticism,  a move- 
ment justly  associated  with  the  name  of  Delacroix.  It  had, 
however,  been  inaugurated  before  him  by  an  artist  who  was 
unconscious  of  his  own  mission.  It  was  in  the  representations 
of  the  Xapoleonic  victories,  with  their  mingled  splendour  and 
horror,  that  the  Pomantic  School  really  took  its  rise,  and  this  was 
the  path  entered  on  by 

Antoine  Jean  Gros,  le  baron,  (born  in  1771,  died  in 
1835).  He  waas  entirely  a pupil  of  David.  He  drew  the 
antique  forms,  but  he  covered  them  with  modern  uniforms. 
Enabled  by  the  help  of  David  to  visit  Italy  in  1793,  Gros 
studied  chiefly  the  works  of  Pubens  and  Yandyck,  and  at 
Milan  was  presented  to  Bonaparte,  who  gave  him  an  honorary 
post  on  his  staff.  To  this  period  belong  those  small  portraits  in 

o 2 


196 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


oil  of  whicli  Massena  and  Bonaparte  at  the'  Bridge  of  Areola 
are  striking  examples,  as  well  as  a few  subjects  from  the  antique, 
such  as  Sappho  at  Leucate. 

But  it  was  in  the  years  after  1801,  when  he  had  returned  to 
Baris,  that  Baron  Gros  produced  those  “Epic  War  Scenes”  of 
which  jSTapoleon  was  the  hero.  The  Louvre  has  two  of  the 
most  notable  in  Napoleon  visiting  the  Plague-stricken  Soldiers  at 
Jaffa,  and  Napoleon  at  Eglau.  The  former  is  astonishing  for 
the  vigorous  accent  of  life  which  pervades  the  scene  of  death 
and  despair,  and  for  the  wonderful  contrasts  of  colour  afforded 
by  the  livid  faces  of  the  dying  and  the  brilliant  uniforms  of 
l^apoleon  and  his  staff.  In  the  latter  picture,  by  a stroke  of 
genius,  the  artist  has  concentrated  all  the  horror  of  the  scene  in 
the  face  of  ISTapoleon.  Here  too  the  qualities  of  the  artist  as 
a colourist  are  apparent,  the  tones  being  gloomy  to  suit  the 
subject,  yet  harmonious. 

In  these  grand  pictures  Gros  had  shown  all  the  force  of  his 
ardent  but  unimaginative  genius  ; there  is  another  picture  in  the 
Louvre  which  shows  his  grace  and  elegance — Francis  I.  and 
Charles  V.  visiting  the  Church  of  St.  Denis.  The  two  kings  are 
well  contrasted  ; the  composition  is  good,  and  the  beauty  of  the 
forms  is  combined  with  a colouring  as  rich  as  that  of  Bubens. 
Yirile  grace  and  brilliant  colouring  also  characterize  Gros’  vast 
oil-painting  on  the  cupola  of  St.  Genevieve,  representing  the 
four  chief  dynasties  of  Erance  offering  the  homage  of  their 
works  to  that  saint.  His  last  great  work  was  the  Embarkation 
of  the  Duchess  of  Angouleme. 

In  following  the  impulse  of  his  genius  Gros  had  strayed  far 
from  David,  yet  when  the  latter  retired  in  1815  to  Brussels,  Gros 
willingly  accepted  the  direction  of  his  school,  and  recoiling  from 
the  new  movement  he  had  himself  set  in  motion,  returned  to 
the  style  of  his  master.  Hercules  and  Diomede,  the  last  picture 
painted  by  him  under  the  influence  of  this  reaction,  appeared  in 
1835,  when  the  Eomantic  School  had  won  the  day,  and  the 


I 


,A 


'’i 


Fuaxcls  I.  AND  Charlp:s  V.  VISITING  THE  ToMBS  IN  St-  Denis.  By  Antuine  Jean  Grus. 

In  tie  Louvre.  (No.  276.)  page  196. 


TAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


197 


criticism  on  liis  picture  was  so  severe  that  the  artist  committed 
suicide.  The  revolution  Avliich  Gros  had  unwillingly  effected 
was  deliberately  carried  out  by 

Theodore  Gericault  (born  in  1791,  died  in  1824),  who,  it  is 
interesting  to  note,  was  a pupil  of  the  cold  Guerin.  Gericault 
was  the  first  to  break  boldly  with  the  classic  traditions  of 
David,  and  to  return  to  reality.  Yet  this  change  must  not 
be  taken  as  implying  a violent  reaction.  Gericault  did  not 
renounce  the  ideal  of  David,  but  he  sought  to  realize  it  in 
ordinary  instead  of  antique  forms,  and  to  find  poetry  in  the 
passions  of  common  humanity.  This  is  the  idea  which  takes 
shape  in  his  celebrated  picture  of  the  Raft  of  the  Medusa^  in  the 
Louvre,  which  will  always  be  looked  on  as  marking  a new 
departure  in  painting.  The  force  with  winch  various  phases  of 
hope  and  despair  are  depicted  here  replaces  and  equals  the  stiff 
nobility  of  the  classic  school.  The  execution  is  worthy  of  tlie 
conception,  the  touch  being  broad,  sure,  and  firm,  while  tire 
tragic  effect  is  enhanced  by  the  skilful  grouping  of  the  figures 
and  the  sombre  but  harmoriious  colouring. 

Had  Gericault  lived  he  would  doubtless  have  been  one  of  the 
most  prominent  leaders  of  the  Eomantic  School.  But  there 
were  not  wanting  others  to  take  his  place.  Delacroix  and  Ingres 
had  singly  great  defects  ; together  they  supplied  just  those 
qualities  which  were  needed  to  ‘‘reform  the  reform”  of  David. 
Delacroix,  weak  in  drawing,  but  a s})lendid  thinker  and  colourist, 
rescued  painting  from  the  domain  of  sculpture,  and  made  it 
thoughtful,  varied,  and  passionate  to  reflect  the  spirit  of  the 
time.  Ingres  too  much  despised  colour,  but  he  combined  a taste 
for  the  antique  far  purer  than  that  of  David,  with  a passion 
equally  strong  for  the  reality  of  nature. 

EugTne  Delacroix  (1798 — 1863),  a pupil  of  Guerin,  may 
be  called  the  first  Eomanticist.  He  reflected  the  new  aspirations 
of  a time  with  which,  moreover,  his  own  genius  was  in  perfect 
unison.  His  pictures  are  not  so  much  the  embodiment  of 


198 


TAINTIKG  IN  FRANCE. 


principles  as  the  expression  of  overmastering  ideas.  He  essen- 
tially represents  the  modern  spirit,  as  yet  strange  to  the  French 


School.  Politics  only  once  attracted  his  pencil : Ids  attempts 
in  the  classic  sty^.e,  sncli  as  the  Mtdea,  fail  in  beauty  of  form, 


PAINTING  IN  FEANCE. 


199 


and  succeed  only  so  far  as  tliey  express  human  emotion.  Nor 
was  he  happier  in  his  purely  religious  subjects,  which,  as  for 
instance  the  Christ  in  the  Sepulchre,  seem  conceived  in  a 
fierce  indignant  spirit.  But  as  a representative  of  that  poetry 
which  depends  for  its  interest  on  Christian  as  opposed  to  pagan 
sentiment,  he  Avas  thorouglily  at  home,  whether  he  Avent  hack  to 
Dante,  or  turned  now  to  Goethe,  noAV  to  Byron.  Broiu  his 
mode  of  thought  and  temperament  sprang  his  defects,  Avhicli 
Avere  also  those  of  the  Eomantic  School  generally.  In  seeking 
to  imbue  his  figures  Avith  character  and  individuality,  he  not 
only  neglected  beauty  of  form,  hut  alloAAmd  it  often  to  degenerate 
into  actual  ugliness,  a fault  hardly  redeemed  by  any  brilliancy 
of  colouring. 

Delacroix’s  genius  appears  fully  developed  in  his  earliest 
pictures,  the  Barque  of  Dante  and  the  Massacre  of  Scio.  The 
former  especially  is  characteristic.  It  is  notable  first  as  being 
inspired  by  imagination  rather  than  nature,  secondly  for  its 
contrasted  harmony  of  colour,  Avhich  affects  the  mind  not  less 
than  the  eye.  The  fact  that  Delacroix  aaxis  never  in  Ital_y 
renders  his  mastery  over  colour  the  more  remarkable.  He 
studied  it  in  the  Avorks  of  Eubens  and  A^eronese,  but  Avhile 
using  it  with  more  poetical  effect,  he  Avas  inferior  to  them  in 
uniting  it  with  perfection  of  form.  His  tones  are  often  strongly 
contrasted, — he  made  great  use  of  black  and  Avhite, — yet  they 
form  a perfect  harmony,  and  no  tone  could  be  displaced  in  Iiis 
l)ictures  Avithout  injuring  the  effect.  The  Algerian  Women, 
painted  on  a visit  to  Morocco,  is  a perfect  specimen  of  his  skill 
in  blending  colours.  In  Hamlet  colour  is  so  used  as  to  produce 
an  effect  of  melancholy;  in  Marino  Faliero  it  gives  a splendid 
and  tiv'gic  effect,  and  even  redeems  the  ugliness  of  the  faces. 
The  AAmakness  of  the  artist  AAdien  deprived  of  the  use  of  colour 
is  seen  in  his  draAvings  and  lithogra})hs  for  Faust,  and  for  the 
same  reason  his  pictures  Avhen  engraved  lose  nearly  all  their 
beauty.  It  is  a strange  contrast  to  pass  from  Delacroix  to  Ingres  ; 


200 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


from  a genius  eager  and  varied  to  one  more  limited,  yet  stronger 
and  as  passionate  in  its  way. 

Jean  Auguste  Domenique  Ingres  (born  in  1780,  died  in 
1867)  was  in  aim  and  achievement  one  of  the  most  original 
painters  of  the  hrench  School.  A pupil  and  cotemporary 
of  David,  and  living  far  on  into  the  nineteenth  century,  he 
unflinchingly  carried  out  his  principles  through  neglect  and 
misunderstanding.  His  life,  after  some  early  years  of  struggle 
in  Paris,  was  passed  till  1824  in  perhaps  fortunate  obscurity 
at  Pome  and  Florence.  At  Pome  he  gained  much  from  the 
study  of  Paphael,  who  bad  long  been  neglected.  He  was  nearly 
fifty  when  he  returned  to  Fraiuie,  to  find  fame  and  honours 
awaiting  him.  Between  1834-41  he  was  enabled  to  extend 
his  influence  as  Director  of  the  School  of  Pome,  and  during 
the  latter  part  of  his  life  he  wms  recognized  as  the  chief  of  the 
French  School. 

Two  apparently  opposite  tendencies  struggled  for  the  mastery 
in  Ingres,  a passion  for  antique  beauty  and  a passion  for  nature. 
But  for  the  influence  of  David,  the  latter  might  have  prevailed ; 
as  it  is,  in  no  painter  have  the  two  ever  been  blended  with  such 
happy  results;  Ingres  was  in  fact  a “romantic  Greek”;  with 
all  his  love  for  the  antique  he  remained  essentially  modern. 
Without  falling  into  the  error  of  painting  sculpture,  he  yet 
seized  the  beauty  of  the  ancient  statues,  and  imbued  them  with 
life  and  character.  The  one  reproach  that  could  justly  be  made 
against  his  style  was  that  it  renounced  colour  for  drawing, 
and  was  wanting  in  the  feeling  for  chiaroscuro,  and  generally 
for  picturesque  effect.  The  perfect  colouring  of  his  Si8tine 
Chapel  and  of  some  of  his  portraits  proves  that  the  neglect  was 
partly  deliberate,  but  it  was  undoubtedly  connected  with  some 
limitations  of  his  genius.  Ingres  had  little  fertility  or  invention. 
His  best  works  occupied  years;  they  were  often  laid  aside  long 
and  finished  late.  His  slow  and  hesitating  imagination  was 
concentrated  almost  exclusively  on  the  beauty  of  the  undraped 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE.  20] 

form,  and  it  was  only  by  a “ passionate  patience  ” that  he  Avroiigh 
out  this  one  idea  in  compositions  cold  in  colouring,  yet  model 


od  style  and  instinct  with  life  and  nature. 

A few  examples,  taken  from  his  earliest  and  latest  works. 


Steatonice.  By  Ingres.  In  the  Louvre. 


202 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


must  serve  to  illustrate  the  qualities  of  Ingres,  which  from  first 
to  last  underwent  no  marked  modification.  CEdipus  explaining 
the  Enigma,  painted  at  Eome  in  1808,  already  shows  his  charac- 
teristic hlending  of  the  real  and  the  ideal,  the  figure  of  OEdipus 
being  of  statue-like  beauty,  yet  thoroughly  human  and  natural 
in  its  unconstrained  grace.  The  Apotheosis  of  Homer,  designed 
for  a ceiling  in  the  Louvre,  was  painted  when  he  was  beginning 
to  emerge  from  obscurity.  It  is  a noble  composition,  bearing  no 
trace  of  the  hesitating  conception  with  which  it  was  wrought 
out  piece  by  piece.  Here  once  more  the  figures  of  the  Iliad  and 
the  Odgsseg  may  be  particularly  noticed  as  being  at  once  ideal 
and  natural.  Perhaps  the  most  striking  instance  of  the  com- 
l)ination  of  these  two  qualities  occurs  in  his  portrait  of  Cheruhini, 
whom  he  has  represented  without  any  jarring  effect,  as  touched 
by  the  descending  Muse.  The  Stratonice  is  beautiful  in  com 
])osition,  and  shows  the  grace  and  tenderness  which  were  blended 
with  the  artist’s  strength.  That  the  true  religious  sentiment 
was  wanting  in  him  is  evidenced  in  the  severe  grace  of  his 
Virgins,  or  by  such  a picture  as  his  haughty  St.  Sipnphorien, 
just  as  Aloliere  and  Louis  XIV.  is  an  instance  of  liis  failure 
to  bend  his  m-assive  genius  to  familiar  subjects.  But  there 
is  one  picture  by  which  alone  Ingres  might  be  completely 
estimated.  This  is  the  single  figure  named  La  Source,  which, 
after  remaining  a sketch  for  forty  years,  was  completed  near 
the  close  of  his  life.  It  has  been  called  ‘‘the  finest  figure 
in  the  French  School,”  and  in  the  union  of  antique  loveliness 
of  form  with  the  perfection  of  natural  grace  could  hardly  be 
surpassed. 

As  the  Eomantic  School  reached  the  height  of  its  success  it 
liegan  to  decline,  as  the  school  of  David  had  done.  Like  all 
movements  of  reform,  it  gave  rise  to  fresh  ideas,  which  reacted 
against  itself.  Thus  while  Ingres  stood  in  clear  opposition  to  it, 
Scheffer  and  Delaroche  began  by  being  its  disciples. 

Ary  Scheffer  (1795 — 1858)  bears  much  resemblance  to 


CllltlSTUS  COXSOLATOU.  ])Y  ArY  ScHEFFER. 


204 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


Delacroix,  liis  fellow-pupil  under  Guerin.  A lliinker  and 
dreamer,  he  reflected  the  public  taste  only  as  it  was  in  accord- 
ance with  his  own  feelings,  which  lay  in  the  direction  of 
mysticism  and  poetry.  But  he  parted  from  Delacroix  and  the 
Romantic  School  in  the  point  of  execution.  Their  principles 
had  insensibly  led  them  to  give  exaggerated  importance  to  the 
materialistic  side  of  art — to  regard  only  painting,  colour,  effect. 
These  were  precisely  the  qualities  which  with  Scheffer  were 
subsidiary  to  sentiment.  He  w^as  truly  the  painter  of  the  soul. 
His  career,  which  falls  easily  into  three  periods,  was  marked  by 
a steady  but  singular  progress ; his  power  of  expression  was 
continually  developing,  as  his  execution  became  more  weak  and 
hesitating.  The  Citizens  of  Calais,  painted  in  1819,  and  still 
more  the  Death  of  Gaston  De  Foix  (1824),  show  a leaning  to 
Romantic  colour  and  effect.  The  Suliote  Women  (1827)  is 
truer  in  colour  and  execution,  while  its  profound  and  touching 
pathos  reveals  the  growth  of  the  artist’s  peculiar  powers.  His 
middle  period  is  marked  by  such  wmrks  as  Faust  and  Margaret 
and  Francesca  di  Rimini,  in  which  the  style  seem^  to  waver,  as 
though  subordinated  to  the  tenderness  and  melancholy  of  the 
sentiment.  The  Giaour,  again,  is  firm  in  execution,  while  the 
King  of  Thule  and  the  ^Veeper  are  richer  in  colour.  The  latter, 
representing  a knight  grieving  over  his  dead  son,  is  a powerful 
representation  of  mute  despair,  and  the  heads  arc  of  remarkable 
beauty.  But  it  is  in  the  religious  pictures,  which  employed  the 
latter  years  of  his  life,  that  the  artist  appears  most  himself.  In 
these  we  wholly  forget  the  means  in  the  effect  produced.  Of 
these  St.  Monica  and  St.  Augustine  is  a typical  example.  The 
same  power  of  expressing  the  soul  is  to  be  seen  in  his  best 
portraits,  of  which  Aladame  Guizot  is  one  of  the  finest. 

Paul*  Delaroche  (1797 — 1856)  was  one  of  the  most  repre- 
sentative painters  of  his  time,  but  he  owed  his  position  not  to 
any  bold  originality,  but  the  zeal  and  intelligence  with  which  he 
* He  was  christened  Hippolyte. 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


205 


cultivated  qualities  not  of  the  liigliest  order.  Plis  earlier  works, 
such  as  Joan  of  Arc  and  the  Death  of  Queen  Elizaheth,  showed 
a desire  to  follow  the  general  manner  of  the  Eomantic  School, 
while  avoiding  its  excesses,  but  he  soon  divined  where  his 
strength  lay,  and  the  way  in  which  it  might  best  be  employed  to 
command  success.  His  genius  was  not  of  the  high,  imaginative 
order,  and  OAving  to  his  early  training  for  landscape  only,  he 
always  laboured  under  an  inability  to  draw  the  midraped  figure. 
A clear  perception  of  his  own  limitations  and  of  the  tendencies 
of  the  day  led  to  his  adoption  of  historical  subjects,  and  to 
his  peculiar  method  of  treating  them.  He  aimed  not  so  much 
at  producing  grand  or  pathetic  effects,  as  at  telling  a story 
dramatically  by  means  of  the  historical  truth  and  accuracy  of  the 
details  and  the  choice  of  the  fittest  moment.  In  tliis  he  showed 
remarkable  intuition,  and  often  achieved  merited  success,  espe- 
cially when  the  execution  equalled  the  idea,  as,  for  instance, 
in  the  Death  of  the  DiiJe  de  Guise,  and  Cromwell  opening  the 
Coffin  of  Charles  I.  In  Cing  Mars  led  to  Execution  and  the 
Death  of  Mazarin  much  is  lost  by  the  indecision  of  the  style, 
Avhile  Strafford  and  Marie  Antoinette  are  not  only  unequal  in 
execution,  but  melodramatic  in  effect.  They  show  calculation 
rather  than  thought,  arrangement  rather  than  composition.  But 
Delaroche  persisted  in  the  path  he  had  marked  out  for  himself, 
and  never  allowed  even  his  studies  in  Italy  to  tempt  him  to 
efforts  beyond  his  poAvers.  Ingres  may  be  said  to  bring  doAAm 
the  ideal  to  earth,  and  make  us  comprehend  it;  Delaroche,  on 
the  contrary,  clings  to  the  real  and  the  familiar,  and  by  lavish 
use  of  the  resources  of  detail  and  arram^ement  seeks  to  bemiile 
our  attentipn  in  order  that  lie  may  seem  to  fill  our  imagination. 
This  is  the  utmost  that  can  be  said  of  his  most  ambitious 
achievement,  the  Ileniicycle  of  Pcdnters,  in  the  Palace  of  the 
Fine  Arts,  a Avork  Avhich  Avill  probably  always  command 
admiration,  while  it  fails  to  satisfy  the  highest  criticism. 

From  this  general  judgment  on  Delaroche  must  be  exempted 


Cinq  Maks  and  De  Thou  Conducted  to  Piuson  by  Richelieu.  Pjy  Delakoche. 
In  llie  possession  of  Sir  lUehard  IValJace, 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


207 


his  portraits,  which  are  always  full  of  character,  and  above  all 
his  latest  works.  The  death  of  his  wife  in  1845  seemed  to 
touch  a new  spring  in  his  genius,  and  it  was  under  the  influence 
of  this  loss  that  he  painted  his  widely-known  Christian  Martijr, 
and  such  sacred  pictures  as  the  Crown  of  Thorns  and  the  Return 
from  Golgotha.  In  these  there  is  nothing  theatrical  or  calculated. 
They  are  full  of  a grief,  tenderness,  and  pathos  which  seem  to 
come  straight  from  the  arti>^t’s  soul. 

Tlie  influence  of  the  four  painters  last  mentioned  is  apparent 
in  several  of  their  pupils  or  successors.  Jules  Ziegler  (1810 — 
1856)  and  Theodore  Chasseriau  (1819  — 1856)  were  both 
pupils  of  Ingres.  The  works  of  the  former  show  something  of 
tlie  skilful  drawing  of  his  master,  with  a richer  colour  and  a 
more  robust  touch.  He  painted  the  cupola  of  the  Madelaine  in 
place  of  Delaroche.  Chasseriau  endeavoured  to  combine  tlie 
style  of  Ingres  with  the  picturesque  effect  of  Delacroix.  His 
Tepidarium  at  Pompeii  shows  his  bold  drawing  and  the  rich 
colouring  of  his  later  style. 

But  the  influence  of  Ingres  was  most  notable  in  Jean  Hyppo- 
LiTE  Tlandrin  (1809 — 1864),  with  whom  there  seemed  to  revive 
the  religious  spirit  of  Lesueur.  He  borrowed  from  Ingres  his 
beauty  of  form  and  severity  of  drawing,  but  he  used  them  to 
embody  Christian  in  lieu  of  pagan  sentiment.  Among  his  best 
works  are  a series  of  twenty  subjects  in  the  church  of  St.  Germain 
des  Pres,  at  Paris,  from  the  Old  and  Hew  Testaments,  comprising 
the  Entrij  into  Jerusalem  and  the  March  to  Caloawij.  Plandrin 
was  often  assisted  by  AActor  Orsel  (1795 — 1850).  Leon 
Benouville  (1821 — ^1859)  was  also  a religious  painter.  His 
works  are  weak  in  execution,  but  in  the  expression  of  Christian 
sentiment  they  almost  equal  those  of  Plandrin.  His  masterpiece 
was  the  Death  of  St.  Francis  of  Assisi,  now  in  the  Luxembourg. 

Delarocbe  had  been  preceded  in  the  genre  of  historical  painting 
by  Francois  Andre  Vincent  (1746 — 1816);  he  was  imitated 
in  the  same  genre  hy  the  brothers  Alfred  Johannot  (1800 — 


1 


Adoration  of  the  Magi.  By  Flandrin. 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


209 


1837)  and  Tony  Johannot  (1803 — 1852),  who,  besides  drawing 
numerous  illustrations  for  boohs,  painted  a few  excellent  historical 
pictures  in  what  may  be  called  the  anecdotal  style. 

Abel  de  Pujol  (1785 — 18G1)  may  be  noted  as  maintaining 
to  a recent  date  the  manner  of  David.  Many  of  his  v/orks  are 
in  the  churches  of  Paris.  Octave  Tassaert  (1800 — 1874) 
painted  somewhat  in  the  style  of  Prud’hon  and  of  Greuze.  His 
subjects  were  generally  of  a mournful  character,  but  he  sometimes 
reverted  to  classic  themes,  which  were  marked  almost  by  a 
character  of  indecency.  Thomas  Couture  (1815 — 1879), 
who  studied  under  Gros  and  Delaroche,  chose  the  historical 
style.  His  Homans  in  ihe  decadence  of  the  Enijnre  is  in  the 
Luxembourg. 

Modern  Italy,  at  a time  when  it  was  less  generally  known 
than  now,  furnished  subjects  full  of  interest  to  several  artists. 

Louis  Leopold  PtOBERT  (1794 — 1835);  a Swiss  by  birth, 
went  early  to  Paris,  entered  the  studio  of  David,  and  afterwards 
spent  much  time  at  Eome.  He  began  by  painting  interiors,  or 
groups  of  pilgrims  and  monks,  with  no  particular  aim  beyond 
reproducing  what  was  striking  or  picturesque.  Having  obtained 
permission  to  copy  some  brigands  who  had  lately  been  captured, 
he  was  enabled  to  strike  out  a line  hitherto  novel  to  artists,  and 
being  further  much  struck  by  the  picturesque  costumes  of  Haples, 
he  conceived  the  idea  of  executing  works  which  should  T)e 
wider  in  their  scope  and  more  representative  in  their  aim.  A 
Ilcdt  of  Harvestmen  in  the  Pontine  Marshes,  now  in  the  Louvre, 
is  one  of  four  pictures  of  this  kind,  in  which  it  was  his  intention 
to  typify  the  four  chief  peoples  of  Italy  by  four  pictures  of  the 
seasons.  It  represents  Pome  and  Summer,  and  was  exhibited  at 
the  Salon  of  1831  with  another.  Return  from  a, 'pilgrimaQe  to  the 
Madonna  deWArco,  representing  Kai)les  and  Spring.  Another 
masterpiece  was  the  Deedh  of  the  Eldest  Son,  which,  like  so  many 
of  his  pictures,  reflects  the  melancholy  that  characterized  him. 
This  melancholy,  the  causes  of  which  are  obscure,  so  grew  upon 

SP  p 


A Halt  of  Hahvestmex  in  the  Pontine  Maushes.  By  Leotold  Robert. 

In  the  Louvre. 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


211 


him  that  he  died  by  his  own  hand.  The  pictures  of  Eobert 
show  rather  high  intelligence  than  creative  genius.  In  their 
firm  drawing  they  show  traces  of  the  teaching  of  David,  while 
by  their  adherence  to  nature  they  belong  to  the  Eomantic  School. 
They  are  somewhat  sculptural  in  effect,  but  the  artist  has  suc- 
ceeded in  lending  dignity  and  character  to  homely  peasants. 

Francois  Marius  Granet  (1775 — 1849),  an  artist  widely 
known  in  Europe,  was  another  pupil  of  David,  and  lived 
mostly  at  Eome.  He  excelled  in  so  distributing  the  light  as  to 
enhance  both  the  dramatic  and  pictorial  effect  of  his  pictures,  in 
which,  however,  the  figures  are  generally  subordinated  to  the 
external  scene.  His  celebrated  Choir  of  the  Capuchins  had 
to  be  repeated  by  the  artist  no  less  than  sixteen  times,  and  ob- 
tained for  him  the  Cross  of  the  Legion  of  Honour  from  Louis 
XVIIL 

A painter  of  very  high  originality,  who  took  Ingres  for  his 
model,  and  worked  much  in  seclusion,  in  the  independent  spirit 
of  his  master,  was  Marc  Charles  Gabriel  Gleyre  (1806 — 
1874).  His  progress  was  at  first  slow  ; his  genius  was  deficient 
in  originality,  and,  like  that  of  Ingres,  came  only  gradually  to 
maturity.  After  four  years’  study  in  Eome,  he  travelled  for 
six  years  in  Sicily,  Greece,  and  Egypt,  taking  many  sketches, 
among  others  one  which  he  afterwards  worked  up  as  the  picture 
called  Eventide  f \\\?>  first  great  work,  although  not  in  his  matur- 
est  style.  The  origin  of  this  work  is  interesting,  as  showing 
Gleyre’s  poetic  temperament.  The  subject  was  suggested  to  him 
by  a twilight  evening  on  the  Nile,  and  in  the  sketch,  as  first 
executed,  the  figures  in  the  boat  were  drawn  as  angels,  and  the 
musing  figure  on  the  bank  omitted.  His  Eastern  pictures,  how- 
ever, as  a rule,  are  wanting  in  imagination,  and  a visit  which  he 
made  to  Venice,  introduced  a simpler  and  noble  element  into  his 
style.  His  later  pictures  show  a continual  advance  towards  the 

* In  all  engravings  and  reproductions  this  picture  is  named  Les  Illusions 
Perdues.  See  Frontispiece. 


P 2 


212 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


realization  of  an  exacting  ideal.  They  comprise  historical, 
sacred,  and  mythological  subjects,  in  which  severity  of  treatment 
is  combined  witli  a poetic  grace  peculiarly  the  painter’s  own. 

Henri  Lehmann  (1814 — 1882)  was  also  a pupil  of  Ingres. 
The  most  important  of  his  works  were  mural  paintings,  among 
the  most  remarkable  of  which  were  those  in  the  Galerie  des 
Fetes  at  the  Hotel  de  Yille,  and  the  ceiling  of  the  Salle  des 
Assises  at  the  Palais  de  Justice,  both  since  destroyed  at  the 
troubles  of  the  Commune.  Lehmann  was  also  known  as  one  of 
the  foremost  portrait  painters  of  the  day.  His  style,  although 
founded  on  that  of  Ingres,  and  combining  adherence  to  form 
with  truth  to  nature,  inclines  more  to  the  graceful  and  the  ele- 
vated than  to  the  severe  and  the  lofty,  and  pleases  more  than  it 
impresses. 

"With  Ingres  and  Delacroix,  Scheffer  and  Delaroche,  began  an 
impulse  which  has  lasted  to  the  present  day.  Their  methods 
may  now  he  partially  discredited,  hut  to  their  efforts — ranging 
in  such  varied  directions,  and  all  having  for  their  object  generally 
to  bring  back  painting  from  convention  to  nature — may  be 
traced  the  independence  and  variety  which  now  characferize  the 
Fi-ench  School.  Eomanticism  is  seen  not  to  be  directly  sup- 
planted by  any  rival  sect,  but  to  expand  gradually  into  a free 
development  of  all  branches  of  painting,  in  which  each  artist 
follows  the  bent  of  his  own  genius.  Owing,  however,  chiefly  to 
external  circumstances,  we  find  the  tendenc}^  of  this  new  develop- 
ment to  be  distinctly  in  the  direction  of  Eealism.  At  the  same 
time  that  the  technical  side  of  Art  reached  in  this  latter  period  an 
extraordinary  degree  of  perfection,  a wide  field  is  thrown  open 
for  its  exercise  in  the  rich  variety  of  modern  life,  with  its  quickly 
changing  incidents  and  the  multiplicity  of  its  impressions. 
'Travel  itself  largely  increases  the  sum  of  these  external  irn- 
])ressions  at  the  disposal  of  the  artist,  and  introduces  a new  and 
vivid  element  into  French  painting.  As  if  Italy  were  not 


214 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


enough,  the  East  suffers  an  artistic  invasion,  and  its  landscapes 
and  cities  are  keenly  studied  in  the  search  for  more  brilliant 
play  of  colour  or  novelty  of  picturesque  effect.  Finally,  during 
this  period  we  perceive  a yet  more  legitimate  field  of  artistic 
expansion  opened  up  to  Erench  painting,  in  the  rise  of  a modern 
school  of  landscape,  which,  in  contradistinction  to  the  classic 
school  of  Poussin,  seeks  its  inspiration  direct  from  nature. 

Turning  hack  now  to  notice  in  their  chronological  order  those 
painters  who  were  occupied  chiefly  with  genre  subjects,  we  find 
Gerard  and  Hersent  succeeded,  in  the  genre  of  portrait,  by 
Jea.n  Baptiste  Isabey  (1767 — 1855).  Like  Gerard,  Isahey 
owes  his  fame  to  the  eminence  of  his  sitters.  Such  names  as 
Marie  Antoinette,  Miraheau,  Napoleon — the  last  of  whom  he 
was  particularly  happy  in  representing — mark  some  of  the  stages 
of  his  long  career  ; hut  he  was  most  in  vogue  under  the  Directory, 
when  he  was  unrivalled  as  a miniaturist.  His  portraits  were 
especially  distinguished  by  their  fine  drawing,  a merit  for  which 
he  was  indebted  to  the  help  of  David.  Another  skilful  minia- 
turist was  Madame  de  Mirbel  (1796 — 1849),  who  was  very 
fashionable  in  the  reign  of  Louis  Philippe. 

Madame  Elizabeth  Louise  Yigee  le  Brun  (1755 — 1842) 
achieved  early  success  with  her  portrait  of  Marie  Antoinette  and 
Iter  Children.  She  was  very  popular,  and  her  ISalon  was  one  of 
tlie  most  celebrated  in  Paris.  After  the  Bevolution  she  visited 
Italy  and  nearly  all  the  other  countries  of  Europe,  and  was 
everywhere  received  with  the  greatest  honour.  In  style  she 
belongs  entirely  to  the  eighteenth  century,  and  often  imitated 
Nattier  in  representing  real  persons  in  mythological  dress.  The 
Portrait  of  herself  and  Child,  in  the  Louvre,  is  in  this  manner. 

Gustav  Picard  (1823 — 1873)  confined  himself  chiefly  to  por- 
traits, which  he  painted  with  picturesqueness  and  technical  skill. 

Carle  Vernet  (1758 — 1835),  the  son  of  Joseph  Yernet, 
after  renouncing  the  classic  style,  painted  a few  battle-pieces,  of 


]^Ia])AME  U-:  J]];uN.  ]>v  Hkkself. 


216 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


which  the  best  were  Marengo  and  Austerlitz.  But  he  had  not 
the  qualities  of  a great  artist,  and  his  reputation  rests  on  his 
paintings  of  animals — especially  the  horse — and  his  caricatures, 
in  which  he  ayailed  himself  largely  of  lithography.  In  his 
IncroyaUes  and  Marveilleuses  of  the  Directory,  or  his  English  in 
Paris,  was  revived  the  spirit  of  Callot ; hut  Yernet,  with  equal 
wit,  displays  a yet  more  grotesque  fancy  and  truth  to  nature. 

In  Carle’s  son,  Horace  Yernet  (1789 — 1863),  we  find  one 
of  the  most  characteristic  of  French  painters.  In  the  witty, 
incisive,  and  superficial  character  of  his  genius  he  resembled  his 
father.  He  had  the  quickness  of  conception  and  dexterity  of 
execution  which  are  described  by  the  term  improvisation.  What 
he  had  once  seen  he  could  paint  from  memory;  and  his  com- 
positions, while  full  of  inaccuracies  in  detail,  have  that  approxi- 
mative resemblance  to  nature  which  is  sufficient  to  please 
without  satisfying  criticism.  His  first  attempts  were  not  favour- 
ably received,  hut  discouragement  had  little  effect  on  his  restless 
and  versatile  temperament,  and  success  came  to  him  so  rapidly 
that  in  1828  he  was  made  .Director  of  the  Academy  of  Eome. 
Here,  all  that  was  superficially  striking  and  picturesque  served  as 
themes  for  his  facile  pencil.  It  was,  however,  a passing  visit 
which  he  made  to  Algeria  in  1833,  that  gave  the  decisive  direc- 
tion to  his  talent.  The  scenes  of  military  life  which  he  there 
met  with,  set  olf  as  they  were  by  the  most  picturesque  surround- 
ings, were  just  what  was  required  to  call  forth  his  peculiar 
powers ; and  henceforth,  along  with  vivid  transcriptions  of 
picturesque  incident,  of  which  the  Post  through  the  Desert  may 
be  taken  as  a good  example,  he  devoted  himself  mainly  to  depict- 
ing the  French  soldier,  in  every  aspect,  and  under  all  conditions. 
He  is  quick  to  seize  and  pourtray  all  the  dramatic  incidents  of 
the  camp  and  the  garrison,  and  in  representing  actual  episodes  of 
war,  the  spirit  and  vivacity  with  which  he  renders  the  general 
impression  of  the  scene,  atone  for  much  carelessness  and  in- 
accuracy. His  masterpiece  in  this  style  is  the  series  representing 


The  Post  through  the  Desert.  By  IIor.ace  Yer.net. 


218 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


the  Taking  of  Constantine f at  Versailles.  The  Crimean  "War 
also  supplied  him  with  an  inexhaustible  field  for  kindred  themes. 
Wholly  difierent  in  kind  were  those  biblical  scenes  which  in  all 
probability  were  suggested  to  the  artist  by  a visit  which  he  made 
to  Egypt  and  Palestine.  Yernet’s  sacred  pictures  have  all  the 
conspicuous  qualities  of  his  genius,  but  for  this  very  reason  fall 
wholly  short  of  their  aim.  In  fact,  where  real  nobility  of  style 
is  essential  he  always  fails  entirely.  In  proof  of  this  it  is  suffi- 
cient to  point  to  his  Judith  and  Holofernes,  or  the  Meeting  of 
Raphael  and  Michelangelo.  Two  pictures  in  other  genres  also 
fully  illustrate  his  merits  and  defects — the  Studio  of  Horace,  and 
tlie  portrait  of  Frere  Philip)pe,  which  was  shown  at  the  Paris 
Exhibition  of  1855. 

As  a painter  of  horses  Carle  Vernet  was  succeeded  by  Swebach 
Desfontaines  (1768 — 1824) ; in  caricature,  besides  his  own  son 
Horace,  there  were  several  artists  who  claim  mention  as  in  some 
sort  the  successors  of  Callot,  although  the  medium  they  chiefly 
used  was  lithography.  Grandville  (1803 — 1847)  was  skilful 
in  depicting  the  follies  of  men  through  the  physiognomies  of 
animals.  Nicolas  Toussaint  Charlet  (1792 — 1845)  found  a 
fertile  subject  in  the  Erench  soldier  of  the  Empire,  whom  he 
treated  with  a mingled  humour  and  pathos  wdiich  recall  Beranger. 
In  a similar  spirit  Denis  Auguste  Marie  Eaffet  (1804 — 
1860)  depicts  the  characteristic  traits  of  the  French  soldier  of 
a later  time.  Gavarni  (1801 — 1866),  whose  real  name  was 
SuLPiCE  Guillaume  Chevalier,  was  a satirist  of  severer  type. 
In  his  delineations  of  certain  aspects  of  society  he  ranges  from 
irony  to  bitterness,  and  shows  no  trace  of  tenderness  or  pity. 
Some  of  his  most  forcible  sketches  represent  the  vice  and 
misery  of  London  about  1849-50. 

Two  artists  may  be  more  particularly  noticed  here  as  being 
the  last  representatives  of  that  older  manner  of  battle-painting 
which  is  now  superseded  by  the  so-called  anecdotal  style.  These 
* A stronghold  in  Algeria,  where  Ahcl-el-Kader  was  captured. 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


219 


Avere  Joseph  Louis  Hippolyte  Bellange  (1800 — 1865),  many 
of  whose  works  are  at  Yersailles,  and  Isidore  Alexandre 
Auguste  Pils  (1815 — 1875),  who  found  his  most  important 
subjects  in  the  scenes  of  the  Crimean  AYar. 

On  turning  to  landscape  we  find  little  attention  bestowed 
upon  it  during  the  eighteenth  century.  The  traditions  of  Claude 
and  Poussin  were  obsolete,  while  the  absence  of  a genuine  love 
of  nature  made  the  rise  of  a new  school  as  yet  impossible.  The 
Italian  scenes  and  sketches  of  Hubert  Egbert  (1733 — 1808) 
showed  some  fire  and  imagination,  but  were  interesting  chiefly 
for  their  subjects.  The  only  representatives  of  pure  landscape 
were  Simon  Mathurin  Lantara  (1729 — 1778),  and  Lazare 
Bruandet  (1755 — 1803).  The  former,  an  obscure  artist  of 

Bohemian  life,  loved  to  wander  in  the  woods  of  Fontainebleau, 
painting  scenes  which,  in  their  effects  of  sun  and  air,  resembled 
those  of  Claude.  Bruandet  also  frequented  the  environs  of 
Paris,  and  adopted  a similar  style.  Jean  Yictor  Bertin 
(1775 — 1842),  an  historical  landscape  painter,  is  best  known 
as  the  master  of  Michallon,  Corot,  Coignet,  and  other  celebrated 
men. 

During  the  ascendancy  of  David  landscape  was  equally  neg- 
lected, but  for  a different  reason.  It  was  looked  down  upon  as 
wanting  in  importance  and  grandeur.  In  order  to  succeed  it 
had  to  ape  the  artificial  dignity  of  the  “ classic  ” style.  This 
factitious  element  is  particularly  observable  in  the  later  works  of 
three  artists  who  otherwise  showed  a strong  inclination  to  study 
directly  from  nature.  Jean  Baptiste  Huet  (1745 — 1811)  and 
Jean  Louis  Demarne  (1744 — 1829)  seem  never  to  have  cared 
to  stray  far  from  the  environs  of  cities.  They  are  fond  of  en- 
livening their  scenes  with  episodes  of  every-day  life,  and  in  their 
figures  may  be  traced  the  successive  influences  of  Boucher  and 
David.  Huet  excelled  in  painting  animals  of  all  kinds,  render- 
ing the  texture  of  the  skin  with  especial  skill.  Demarne  was 
born  at  Brussels,  and  his  imitation  of  many  Flemish  masters 


220 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


adds  to  the  inequality  of  liis  style.  Fairs,  country  roads,  mili- 
tary bivouacs,  were  the  favourite  subjects  of  his  pencil. 

JSTicolas  Antoine  Taunay  (1755 — 1830)  has  been  called  the 
David  of  small  pictures.”  The  environs  of  Rome  furnished  him 
with  scenes  and  incidents  similar  to  those  of  Demarne,  but  dis- 
figured by  a ridiculous  affectation  of  the  antique  style. 

A pedantic  attempt  to  revive  the  “ historic  landscape  ” of 
Poussin  was  made  by  Yalenoiennes  (1750 — 1819),  and  with 
more  ability  by  Achille  Etna  Michallon  (1796 — 1822).  His 
studies  at  Rome  were  divided  between  simple  nature  and  the 
works  of  Poussin,  but  the  rising  influence  of  Romanticism  in- 
duced him  to  seek  his  heroes  not  in  mythology,  but  the  chivalric 
legends  of  the  middle  ages.  His  Death  of  Roland  was  considered 
a masterpiece.  Though  timid  in  execution,  it  is  good  in  com- 
position and  spirited  in  sentiment ; but  the  time  for  the  historic 
genre  was  past,  and  no  genius  could  have  given  it  permanent 
vitality.  The  Romantic  influence  led  to  better  results  in  Camille 
Roqueplan  (1803 — 1855),  whose  landscapes  and  sea-pieces,  full 
of  light,  colour,  and  effect,  led  the  way  to  a better  style. 

Still,  in  spite  of  all  modifications  in  taste,  nature — dissevered 
from  human  interest — remained  a subject  little  understood  or 
appreciated  in  France,  and  the  impulse  which  led  to  its  being 
studied  in  a new  spirit  came  eventually  from  England.  The 
works  of  the  English  artists  Bonington- and  Constable,  exhibited 
in  France  in  1824,  first  opened  the  eyes  of  French  landscape 
painters  to  the  charm  which  nature  possesses  in  itself.  Boning- 
ton spent  nearly  all  his  life  in  France,  and  to  the- admiration 
excited  by  his  skill  in  colour  and  chiaroscuro,  may  be  traced  the 
movement  which  has  resulted  in  the  present  high  position  held 
by  French  landscape.  The  first  artist  of  note  in  whom  this  new 
spirit  appears  was  Alexandre  Gabriel  Decamps  (1803 — 1860), 
whose  vigorous  truth  to  nature  first  astonished  and  then  delighted 
his  countrymen.  A boyhood  spent  in  the  rustic  solitudes  of 
Picardy,  cannot  but  have  had  a decisive  influence  upon  his 


A Turkish  Schooi,.  1"a'  Decamps,  hi  the  Collection  of  ISh'  Jlichard  Wallacr. 


222 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


artistic  ideas,  and  probably  accounts  for  the  bold  originality  of 
conception  and  the  rugged  vigour  of  style  which  characterize  his 
painting.  Arriving  in  Paris,  he  studied  at  first  under  Abel  de 
Pujol,  but  the  Davidian  tradition  of  this  master  hardly  affected 
for  a moment  the  masterful  originality  of  his  pupil.  The  land- 
scapes of  Decamps  are  not  mere  backgrounds  for  historic  or 
idyllic  action,  but  derive  their  sentiment  and  interest  from  a 
sympathetic  study  of  nature  alone  in  her  different  moods  and 
aspects.  If  he  introduces  figures,  it  is  because  they  really  form 
part  of  the  scene,  as  in  the  Herdsman.  The  truth  and  fidelity 
with  which  Decamps  studied  simple  nature  were  also  applied  by 
him  in  other  directions.  His  Eastern  scenes  are  not  conceived 
in  any  romantic  or  poetic  spirit,  but  are  striking  for  their  local 
truth,  natural  force,  picturesque  variety,  and  delightful  humour. 
These  qualities  are  apparent  in  a Turkish  ScIwgI.  His  humour 
also  appears,  sometimes  with  richest  satirical  effect,  in  his  studies 
of  animals,  of  which  he  was  very  fond.  Still,  landscape  was  his 
forte,  as  is  apparent  even  in  his  few  fine  figure-pieces ; such  as, 
for  instance,  the  Cimhrians,  and  Joseph  sold  htj  his  Brethren. 
These,  although  striking  and  impressive,  miss  the  highest  effect 
of  Art,  which  was  beyond  the  reach  of  Decamps,  and  it  is  the 
landscape  which,  while  meant  to  he  subordinate,  really  forms  the 
finest  part  of  them.  The  colouring  of  Decamps  is  too  opaque 
and  monotonous,  but  his  chiaroscuro  is  excellent. 

The  artist,  however,  to  whom  by  common  consent  belongs  the 
title  of  “ Father  of  Modern  French  Landscape,”  was  Theodore 
Lousseau  (1812 — 1867).  He  might  even  more  appropriately  be 
called  its  proto-martyr,  for  he  was  the  first  who,  passionately 
imbued  with  a sense  of  the  beauty  and  mystery  of  nature, 
X»ure  and  simple,  and  gifted  with  powers  of  execution  certainly 
unique,  succeeded  in  working  out  and  establishing  his  ideal 
under  the  sternest  discouragement  from  without.  The  success 
which  was  the  meed  of  many  of  his  contemporaries  and  imi- 
tators, came  but  tardily  to  Eousseau  ; and  even  so  he  owed 


PAIXTIXG  IX  FRAXCE. 


223 


it  chiefly  to  foreigners,  ratlier  than  to  his  own  countrymen. 
Like  Decamps,  the  country  scenes  in  which  much  of  his  boy- 
hood was  passed,  exercised  a great  influence  over  him.  Hence 
he  soon  left  the  classic  studio  of  Eemond,  with  whom  he 
was  placed,  and,  encouraged  by  Ary  Scheffer,  followed  simply 
his  own  artistic  impulses.  These  were  all  in  the  direction  of 
nature,  and  the  conception  which  he  brought  to  bear  upon  it 
w^as  extraordinarily  original,  novel,  and  daring.  He  was  not  to 
be  deterred  from  reproducing  any  natural  effect,  however  bizarre 
or  unusual  it  might  seem ; and  painting  freely,  without  pre- 
judices or  adherence  to  any  particular  system,  essayed  to  pourtray 
nature  with  the  utmost  dramatic  breadth.  A View  in  Auvergne, 
which  appeared  in  the  Salon  of  1831,  was  greeted  by  the 
Eomanticists  with  acclaim,  but  some  time  subsequently  his 
pictures,  in  which  a steady  advance  in  the  delineation  of  nature 
was  perceptible,  were  persistently  rejected.  This  exclusion  not 
only  embittered  the  artist’s  life — an  influence  not  without 
indirect  effect  on  his  pictures — but  by  straitening  his  means  and 
preventing  his  travelling  for  purposes  of  study,  actually  to  some 
extent  impeded  his  work.  Without  being  daunted,  however,  he 
pursued  his  studies  in  several  parts  of  France,  making  his  home 
chiefly  at  Barbizon,  on  the  borders  of  Fontainebleau,  where  also 
his  friend  INIillet  long  resided.  A long  series  of  pictures,  marked 
by  an  ever-increasing  mastery  in  his  art,  were  now  produced  by 
Eousseau,  among  which  may  specially  be  named  the  Avenue  of 
Chestnuts  (1837),  and  the  magnificent  View  of  the  Alps  taken 
from  la  ikmcile  (1867),  which  are  his  masterpieces.  The  merits 
of  Eousseau  w^ere  fully  recognized  at  the  Exhibition  of  1855,  but 
even  after  that  time  he  suffered  much  from  hostile  criticism,  and 
at  the  Exhibition  of  1867  w^as  only  awarded  a medal  instead  of 
the  Grand  Cross,  a slight  which  hastened  his  death.  The  dis- 
tinguishing trait  of  Eousseau’s  genius  was  a breadth  of  poAver 
arising  from  his  extraordinary  combination  of  qualities.  He 
painted  nature  in  all  her  A^ariety,  Avhether  of  mountain,  or  forest. 


Sunset.  By  Theodore  Rousseau, 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


225 


or  plain,  or  water,  and  in  all  her  aspects,  whether  gay  or  somhre, 
fresh  or  arid.  This  variety  is  equalled  by  the  power  with  which 
he  can  present  a scene  in  its  grand  dramatic  aspect,  venturing  on 
effects  and  combinations  untried  before  him.  At  the  same  time 
his  treatment  of  detail  is  rich  and  elaborate,  and  his  execution 
finished  to  the  last  degree.  Rousseau  and  the  school  of  his  ini  itators 
made  aerial  effect  the  leading  principle  of  composition.  “ Light,” 
to  use  his  own  words,  “ spread  over  a work,  is  universal  life.  . . 
without  light  there  is  no  creation,  all  is  chaos,  death,  or  inanity.” 
This  principle,  the  basis  of  pictorial  effect  in  all  his  work,  is  espe- 
cially observable  in  his  numerous  studies  of  Sunset  or  Sunrise, 
which  are  “ true  dramas  of  light.”  Around  Rousseau  formed 
themselves  a group  of  artists  who  pursued  the  same  aims  : 

In  Camille  Corot  (1796 — 1875),  who  was  a pupil  of  Jean 
Victor  Bertin,  the  respect  for  style  struggles  with  an  attempt 
to  view  nature  in  a poetic  spirit,  but  without  sufficient  regard  to 
accuracy  of  detail.  Corot  had  learned  from  Michallon  to  imitate 
Poussin,  but  a long  residence  in  Italy  and  the  influence  of  Bertin 
gradually  modified  his  style.  The  influence  of  Bonington,  whom 
he  much  admired,  also  counted  for  something  in  his  artistic 
development.  The  nature  of  his  genius  accounts  for  the  vagaries 
of  his  imitators,  and  for  the  disfavour  in  which  he  was  at  first 
held  alike  by  the  historical  and  romantic  schools.  His  earlier 
efforts  are  undoubtedly  open  to  the  charge  of  vagueness  and  in- 
completeness, and  it  needed  long  and  persistent  efforts  before  he 
could  bring  his  gifts  to  maturity.  Corot,  however,  clearly  recog- 
nized where  his  strength  lay,  and  with  the  happy  amiability  that 
marked  his  disposition,  was  content  to  persist  in  his  own  path  till 
the  public  “ came  round  to  him.”  Corot’s  love  for  nature  is  as 
intense  as  Rousseau’s,  but  he  approaches  it  from  another  side, 
and  in  a wholly  different  spirit.  A poet  and  idealist,  he  does  not 
impress  by  the  dramatic  force  of  his  delineations,  but  pleases  by 
the  grace  and  seduction  of  his  style,  while  he  atones  for  technical 
defects  by  the  strength  of  his  imagination.  It  is  by  imagination 

SP  ' Q 


226 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


applied  to  the  interpretation  of  nature,  that  Corot  lays  claim  to 
liigh  rank  as  an  artist.  The  vaporous  haze  that  overspreads  his 
landscapes  is  the  expression  of  his  ardent  attempt  to  harmonize 
in  an  ideal  whole  all  that  he  sees.  Every  delicate  effect  of  light 
is  carefully  studied  from  nature,  but  the  general  impression  is 
derived  as  much  from  inward  as  outward  contemplation.  The 
idyllic  tendency  of  his  genius  reveals  itself  still  more  clearly 
in  the  figures  drawn  from  fable  or  legend  or  the  Bible,  with 
which  he  peoples  his  landscapes,  as  may  be  seen  for  instance  in 
A Dance  of  These  figures  are  not  conceived  in  the 

“ classic  ” style,  but  are  the  living  creations  of  the  artist’s  fancy, 
which  seem  part  of  nature,  while  they  lend  her  a new  life  and 
animation. 

ERANgois  Edouard  Bertin  (1797 — 1871)  studied  under 
Girodet,  and  became  a landscape  painter  of  great  skill  and 
much  influence  among  his  contemporaries.  He  was  appointed 
inspector  of  the  Beaux- Arts. 

Jules  Louis  Philippe  Coignet  (1798 — 1860),  a landscape 
painter  of  great  merit,  Avas  a pupil  of  Jean  Victor  Bertin,  and 
travelled  much  in  Italy  and  the  East  in  pursuit  of  his  art. 

Charles  ERANgois  Daubigny  (1817—1878)  commenced  life 
as  an  artist  by  painting  clock-cases,  boxes,  and  other  articles  of 
fancy  commerce  under  the  tuition  of  his  father.  At  the  age  of 
nineteen  he  entered  the  studio  of  Delaroche.  He  is  chiefly 
distinguished  by  the  beauty  of  his  landscapes,  several  of  which 
are  in  public  galleries  in  France,  and  the  delicacy  of  his  etchings, 
in  which  branch  of  Art  he  particularly  excelled. 

Antoine  Chintreuil  (1816 — 1873)  owed  much  to  Corot,  and 
adopted  the  same  idyllic  style.  The  right  path  once  discovered, 
landscape  found  many  masters  worthy  of  its  full  maturity. 

Narcisse  Yirgile  Diaz  de  la  Pena  (1809 — 1876)  was  born  at 
1 Bordeaux,  of  Spanish  parents,  a jircumstance  which  had  some  in- 
fluence on  his  style.  Apprenticed  as  assistant  to  a manufacturer  of 
])orcelain,  he  Avas  promoted  to  paint  designs,  and  thence  rose  by  his 


Da>’Ce  of  Nymphs.  By  Corot. 


228 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


own  independent  efforts  to  a distinguished  position  as  an  artist. 
It  is  as  a colourist,  and  in  the  expression  of  startling  effects  of 
light  and  shade,  that  Diaz  excels.  Woodland  Scenes^  in  which 
sombre  forest  depths  are  lit  up  by  rays  of  sunshine,  are  a favourite 
study  with  him,  and  he  affects  especially  rich  autumnal  colouring. 
There  is  something  violent  and  impressionable  in  the  genius  of 
Diaz.  He  despised  form  and  precision  as  much  as  he  loved 
splendour  and  contrast  of  colour,  and  his  enthusiasm  for  Dela- 
croix was  more  than  equalled  by  his  hatred  for  Ingres.  These 
limitations,  which  derogate  in  some  degree  even  from  his  claims 
as  a painter  of  landscape,  prevented  his  attaining  complete 
success  in  other  genres.  The  human  figures  which  he  sometimes 
introduced  into  his  pictures  have  no  meaning  or  expression,  hut 
are  simply  treated  as  vehicles  for  obtaining  new  and  brilliant 
effects  of  colour.  The  same  remark  applies  to  the  Oriental 
subjects  which  Diaz  sometimes  painted. 

Constantine  Troyon  (1816 — 1865)  is  another  instance  of  an 
artist  who  was  remarkable  without  being  great.  Like  Diaz,  he 
began  life  as  a painter  on  porcelain  at  Sevres,  but  soon  took  to 
landscape,  studying  directly  from  nature,  and  learning  much  from 
the  works  of  Crome  and  Constable.  His  earlier  efforts  were  by 
no  means  successful,  but  a visit  which  he  made  to  Holland  in 
1847,  revealed  to  him  the  affinity  of  his  genius  with  much  that 
was  characteristic  in  Dutch  Art.  He  studied  Eembrandt  and 
Potter,  and  while  maturing  his  style,  confirmed  his  predilection 
for  animal  painting.  It  is  in  fact  as  a painter  of  animals,  even 
more  than  as  a painter  of  landscape,  that  Troyon  takes  rank. 
Such  titles  as  Oxen  going  to  Labour,  Evening  in  the  Meadows, 
indicate  his  ordinary  subjects.  He  does  not  paint  nature  impar- 
tially, and  in  all  her  variety,  but  emphatically  under  her  more 
rustic  and  cultivated  aspects.  Like  Decamps  he  depends  much 
for  expression  on  the  execution.  He  excels  in  producing  an  effect 
of  light  and  air  by  which  all  harslier  outlines  are  subdued,  and 
the  scene  brought  vividly  before  us  in  its  unity. 


Woom.ANT)  Scene.  (Lc.parc  rmr  liiaifr,.)  P>y  Diaz, 


Sunrise.  Oxen  going  to  Labour.  By  Troyon. 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


231 


Among  so  many  great  names  in  landscape,  not  the  least 
interest  attaches  to  that  of  the  now  celebrated  “ peasant 
painter,” 

Jean  Francois  Millet  (1815 — 1875),  whose  Angelus  and 
many  a kindred  picture  are  now  as  household  words,  but  whose 
greatness,  up  to  close  upoa  the  end  of  his  life,  was  only  begin- 
ning to  be  appreciated  as  it  deserves.  Born  at  Gr^ville  (Manche), 
Millet  went  early  to  Paris,  where  he  entered  the  studio  of 
Delaroche,  but  his  strong  originality  drawing  him  utterly  away 
from  the  methods  of  that  master,  he  entered  upon  a career  of 
extreme  struggle  and  vicissitude.  The  last  twenty-seven  years 
of  his  life  were  spent  at  Barbizon,  and  to  this  period  his  greatest 
works  belong.  Millet  took  for  his  theme  the  daily  life  of  the 
peasants  among  whom  he  had  been  brought  up,  and  the  suffer- 
ings of  whose  lot  were  so  well  known  to  him  by  experience  ; but 
he  brought  to  bear  on  his  subject  a conception  at  once  so  true 
and  powerful  as  to  invest  the  present  with  a heroic  and  legendary 
charm.  Under  their  homely  exterior.  Millet’s  French  peasants 
continually  suggest  the  grace  and  simplicity  of  the  antique. 
This  mingling  of  simple  truth  with  nobility  of  sentiment  is  a 
triumph  of  Art  which  it  might  have  seemed  impossible  to 
achieve.  Millet  represents  nature  and  reality  with  absolute 
fidelity,  but  in  the  spirit  of  one  to  whom  Poussin  and  Michel- 
angelo were  masters,  and  whose  mind  was  nourished  on  such 
literature  as  Virgil  and  the  Bible.  A peculiarity  of  Millet  is  that 
he  does  not  treat  either  man  or  nature  singly,  but  as  intimately 
bound  up  one  with  the  other.  Man  in  the  lowliest  conditions, 
without  the  softening  of  a single  trait  that  marks  the  harshness 
and  melancholy  of  his  lot,  and  nature  in  all  her  open-air  reality 
of  space  and  aerial  perspective,  are  so  combined,  and  made  to 
react  on  each  other,  that  they  seem  part  of  a general  life  which 
passes  before  our  eyes  as  an  “ epic  of  toil.” 

The  influence  exerted  on  French  artists  by  the  vivid  colour  and 
picturesque  variety  of  the  East  was  so  marked  and  important, 


232 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


that  “Eastern”  or  “Oriental”  subjects  may  claim  rank  as  a 
distinct  genre.  Several  artists  were  diverted  from  their  original 
line  of  study  by  this  new  and  attractive  field.  Prosper  MARiiiHAT 
(1811 — 1844)  was  a pupil  of  Koqueplan,  and  before  he  travelled 
in  the  East,  began  by  being  a “ strict  classic.”  His  Eastern 
scenes,  while  less  vigorous  in  style  than  those  of  Decamps,  are 
full  of  a sweet  and  tender  poetry.  A similar  change  of  senti- 
ment appears  in  Claude  Marie  Dubufe  (1793 — 1864),  who 
w'as  a pupil  and  imitator  of  David,  and  painted  historical 
pictures  before  he  eventually  turned  to  Eastern  subjects,  such 
as  the  Slave  Merchant. 

Jean  Louis  Hamon  (1821 — 1874)  began  by  imitating  Dela- 
roche,  but  afterwards  painted  mythological  and  Oriental  subjects 
of  a generally  effeminate  character.  A yet  wider  range  was 
taken  by 

Eugene  Eromentin  (1820 — 1876).  Distinguished  not  less 
as  a brilliant  descriptive  writer  and  critic  than  as  an  artist, 
Eromentin  was  not  at  first  drawn  to  painting,  but  eventually 
entered  the  classic  studio  of  Pemond.  A visit,  however,  in 
1846,  to  Algeria,  which  he  Avas  said,  with  some  justice,  to  have 
“discovered,”  decided  his  career.  Although  he  visited  Italy, 
Egypt,  and  many  other  countries,  it  is  Algeria  that  inspired  his 
best  work,  and  that  will  always  be  associated  with  his  name. 
Arab  life  in  all  its  forms  was  represented  in  Eromentin’s  work, 
but  it  is  as  a landscape  painter  and  a harmonist  in  colour  that 
he  excels.  In  technique  and  the  drawing  of  the  human  form  he 
fails.  The  characteristic,  however,  of  his  matured  style  is  an 
“ extraordinary  surety  of  impression.”  The  artist  who  at  first 
influenced  him  most  strongly  Avas  Marilhat,  but  the  idol  of  his 
later  life  Avas  Corot,  and  the  name  of  this  master  suggests  the 
delicate  and  harmonious  colouring  to  which  Eromentin  at  his 
best  and  latest  attained.  A certain  influence  of  the  Dutch 
masters  is  also  perceptible  in  his  work.  Ai'ah  Chiefs  is  one  of  the 
most  brilliant  of  his  smaller  works,  and  is  besides  interesting  as 


Arab  Chiefs.  By  Fhombntin. 


234 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


exhibiting  horses  in  spirited  action,  a subject  which  the  artist 
especially  loved  to  paint. 

Eut  the  artist  in  whom  these  new  influences  were  most 
remarkably  illustrated,  and  who  also  stands  out  as  a represent- 
ative of  some  of  the  most  pronounced  tendencies  of  modern 
painting,  was  Henri  Eegnault  (1843 — 1871),  whose  death  at 
Euzenval  during  the  Eranco-German  war  cut  short  a career 
full  of  promise.  After  studying  under  Lamothe  and  Cabanel, 
Eegnault,  at  the  second  attempt,  obtained  the  Prix  de  Rome  in 
1866,  and  began  his  real  career  by  studies  of  contemporary 
Eoman  life.  An  acquaintance  with  the  Spanish  painter  Fortuny, 
to  whom  he  afterwards  remained  firmly  attached,  must  also  have 
had  some  influence  upon  his  style.  The  style  of  Eegnault  is 
that  of  a man  almost  intoxicated  with  the  outward  splendour  of 
nature,  and  gifted  with  a unique  faculty  of  expressing  it.  With 
him  both  form  and  colour  seem  the  result,  not  of  study,  but  of 
a rapid  intuition  impressed  on  the  canvas  without  conscious 
effort  or  labour.  His  colouring  especially,  in  its  brilliance  and 
lucidity,  was  a phenomenon  unlike  anything  before  known  in 
painting.  The  equestrian  portrait  of  General  Prim  {See  engrav- 
ing), painted  in  Spain  in  1869,  is  a fine  example  of  this  brilliant 
audacity  in  style.  The  study  of  an  Italian  model,  which  the 
artist  chose  to  name  Salome,  with  the  same  audacity,  exhibits 
still  more  fully  Eegnault’s  unique  mastery  of  colour.  Eut  his 
most  characteristic,  as  well  as  his  latest  work,  is  the  well-known 
Execution  in  the  Alhambra,,  which  he  was  painting  in  Tangiers 
when  the  Franco-German  war  broke  out.  This  picture  is  a very 
“efflorescence”  of  colour,  Avhile  the  crying  nature  of  the  subject 
is  only  rendered  not  revolting  by  the  apparent  simplicity  of 
procedure  and  absence  of  research  in  depicting  the  horrible. 
The  merits  of  Eegnault  are  in  fact  connected  with  deep  defects. 
It  was  the  external  only  that  attracted  him.  One  of  his  pictures, 
the  Pasha,  has  been  called  a “ sunstroke  in  a frame,”  and  of  the 
Salome,  a critic  had  said  that  it  affected  him  in  the  same  way 


u 


» 


I 


General  Prim.  By  Hexri  Regxault.  [See  imge  234. 

Painted  in  Madrid  in  1SG9. 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


235 


as  if  some  one  liad  “ shouted  to  him  across  a street.”  In  this 
pursuit  of  external  effect,  Eegnault  had  passed  to  Eome  and 
Florence,  to  Spain  and  Morocco,  and  he  cherished  the  idea  of 
one  day  going  to  India  and  even  to  China.  But  all  this  wonder- 
ful technical  skill  and  mastery  of  colour  are  uninformed  by  any 
elevated  ideal,  and,  therefore,  with  all  their  splendour  of  style, 
Eegnaiilt’s  works  are  fatally  defective  in  the  higher  qualities  of 
nobility  or  depth  of  sentiment. 

The  name  of  Gustave  Dore  (1832 — 1882)  must  not  be 
passed  over,  although  his  position  is  not  easy  to  define.  As  a 
painter  his  fame  will  probably  not  prove  lasting,  in  spite  of  the 
temporary  popularity  of  his  monumental  Scriptural  themes. 
'Ihese  are  unsatisfactory  both  as  regards  sentiment  and  execution- 
It  was  as  a designer  of  inexhaustible  fertility  and  variety  that  he 
put  forth  his  real  strength,  choosing  for  the  field  of  his  efforts 
some  of  the  greatest  books  in  all  literature.  His  illustrations  to 
the  Bible,  Dante,  Milton,  and  Don  Quixote  are  well  known,  and 
these  are  only  a few  examples  out  of  many.  AVith  all  this 
fecundity,  however,  his  powers  of  invention  and  imagination  are 
strictly  limited  in  their  range,  the  only  subjects  in  which  he  can 
he  said  to  have  attained  more  than  partial  success,  being  those 
into  which  some  element  of  the  grotesque  or  the  fantastic  enters. 

Xo  fitter  name  could  be  found  to  close  this  list  of  deceased 
painters  than  that  of  Gustav  Courbet  (1819 — 1877),  who,  in 
his  own  very  different  -style,  was  as  representative  as  Eegnault. 
Courbet  has  been  called  the  “Father  of  Eealism.’’  Eccentric 
and  a would-be  philosopher,  he  endeavoured  to  carry  his  views 
into  painting.  His  varied  and  numerous  works,  among  which 
are  included  landscape  and  portrait,  are  powerful,  but  often 
marred  by  crudeness  and  eccentricity.  The  Funeral  at  Ornans 
is  one  of  the  most  characteristic. 

Courbet  forms  a connecting  link  between  the  past  and  the 
present.  His  aim,  as  avowed  in  his  own  words,  was  “ to 


236 


PAINTING  IN  FRANCE. 


eliminate  the  ideal.”  Whether  he  perfectly  succeeded  in  his 
own  works  is  doubtful,  hut  the  expression  seems  precisely 
chosen  to  form  the  appropriate  motto  of  a large  section  of 
contemporary  French  artists. 


INDEX 


OF  NAMES  OF  AETISTS. 


PAGE 


Aguero,  Manuel  de  . .49 

Alfon,  Juan  , . . .13 

Aponte,  Pedro  de  . . .14 

Arbasia,  Cesare  . . .34 

Arellano,  Juan  de  . . .49 

Arfian,  Antonio  de  . . .32 

Audran,  Claude  . . .126 

Ayala,  Bernabe  de  . . ,63 

Bachelier,  Jean  Jacques  . 172 

Barroso,  Miniel  . . .25 

Baudouin,  Pierre  A.  . 175,  176 
Bayeu,  Francisco  . . .76 

Becerra,  Caspar  . . .18 

Bellange,  Joseph  L.  H.  . .219 

Benouville,  Leon  . . . 207 

Bermudez,  Juan  A.  C,  . .73 

Bernuis,  Bartolonie  del  Rio  . 25 

Berruguete,  Alonso  . .18 

Berruguete,  Pedro  . . .13 

Berlin,  Francois  Edouard  . 226 

Berlin,  Jean  Victor  .'  .219 

Blanchard,  Jacques  . .109 

Blanche!,  Thomas  . . .140 

Bon  Boulogne  . . . 135 

Borgona,  Juan  de  . .13 

Borras,  Nicolas  . .37 

Bosch,  Jerom  . . .17 

Boucher,  Frangois  . . .175 

Boulogne,  Genevieve  de  . .136 

Boulogne,  Louis  de  . .135 

Boulogne,  Louis  de  (the 
younger)  . . . .136 


PAGE 


Boulogne,  Madeleine  de  . 

. 136 

Bourdichon,  Jehan 

. 102 

Bourdon,  Sebastian 

. 131 

Bourguignon,  Le  . 

110,  145 

Bruandet,  Lazare  . 

. 219 

Callot,  Jacques  . 

. Ill 

Cambiaso,  Luca 

. 20 

Cambiaso,  Orazio  . 

. 20 

Camilo,  Francisco  . 

. 47 

Campaha,  Juan  B.  . 

. 17 

Campana,  Pedro 

. 17 

Campello,  Antonio  . 

. 86 

Campi,  Antonio 

. 22 

Campi,  Vincenzio  . 

. 22 

Cano,  Alonso 

. 55 

Carbajal,  Luis  de  . 

. 27 

Carducci,  Bartolommeo  . 

. 22 

Carducho,  Yincencio 

. 39 

Carreho  de  Miranda 

. 69 

Casanova,  Fran9ois 

. 174 

Castello,  Fabricio  . 

. 20 

Castello,  Juan  Bautista  . 

. 20 

Castillo,  Antonio  . 

. 52 

Castillo,  Juan  de  . 

. 52 

Castro,  Emmanuel  de 

. 88 

Caxes,  Eugenio 

. 40 

Caxes,  Patricio 

. 20 

Cerezo,  Matteo  de  . 

. 71 

Cespedes,  Pablo  de  . 

32 

Champaigne,  Philippe  de 

. 138 

Chardin,  Jean  Baptiste  . 

. 179 

Charlet,  Nicolas 

. 218 

238  INDEX. 


PAGE 


Chasseriau,  Theodore 

. 207 

Chevalier,  Sulpice  G. 

. 218 

Chintreuil,  Antoine 

. 226 

Cincinato,  Komulo  . 

. 20 

“Claude” 

. 140 

Clouet,  Franyois 

. 106 

Clouet,  Jean  . 

. 106 

Coello,  Claudio 

. 69 

Coignet,  Jules 

. 226 

Collantes,  Francisco 

. 49 

Colombel,  Nicolas  . 

. 140 

Colonna,  Michele  . 

. 49 

Comontes,  Francisco 

. 13 

Contreras,  Antonio  de 

. 63 

Corneille,  Michel  . 

. 136 

Corneille,  Michel  (the  younger)  136 

Corot,  Camille 

. 225 

Correa,  Diego 

. 19 

Coste,  Jean 

. 98 

Cotan,  Juan  Sanchez 

. 40 

Courbet,  Gustav 

. 235 

Courtois,  Jacques  . 

. 145 

Cousin,  Jean  . 

. 104 

Couture,  Thomas  . 

. 209 

Coxcien,  Michiel  van 

. 22 

Coypel,  Antoine 

. 134 

Coypel,  Charles 

. 171 

Coypel,  Noel  . 

. 132 

Coypel,  Noel  Nicolas 

. 171 

Grayer,  Kasper*  le  . 

. 49 

Cruz,  Juan  Pantoja  de  la  . 25 

Cuevas,  Pedro  de  las 

. 47 

D’Avellar,  Gioseffo 

. 88 

D’Orleans,  Girard  . 

. 98 

Daubigny,  Charles  F. 

. 226 

David,  Jacques  Louis 

. 182 

Decamps,  Alexandre  G. 

. 220 

Delacroix,  Eugene  . 

. 197 

De  la  Hire,  Laurent 

. 110 

Delaroche,  Paul 

. 204 

Dello  . 

. 12 

Demarne,  Jean  Louis 

. 219 

Desfontaines,  Swebach 

. 218 

Deshays,  Jean  Baptiste 

. 172 

Desportes,  Franyois 

. 147 

Diaz,  Gaspard 

. 86 

Diaz,  Narcisse  V.  de  la 

Pena  . 226 

PAGE 

Dore,  Gustave  . . . 23.o 

Doyen,  Gabriel  Franyois  . 170 
Drouais,  Jean  G.  . , .187 

Dubois,  Ambroise  . . .106 

Dubreuil,  Toiissaint  . .106 

Dubufe,  Claude  Marie  . ,231 

Dughet,  Gaspar  . . .142 

Escalante,  Juan  de  S.  . . 73 

Espinosa,  Jacinto  G.  de  , . 64 

Esquarte,  Paul  . . .37 

Factor,  Pedro  Nicolas  . . 37 

Falco,  Juan  Conchillos  . .74 

Fernandez,  Alexo  . . ,14 

Fernandez,  Antonio  A.  . .47 

Fernandez,  Francisco  . , 40 

Fernandez,  Luis  . . .40 

Fernandez,  Vasco  . . .86 

Flandrin,  Jean  H.  . . . 207 

Fontenay,  Blaise  de  . .147 

Forbin,  Auguste  de  . .211 

Fortuny,  Mariano  . . .76 

Fosse,  Charles  de  la  . .149 

Fouquet,  Jehan  . . .100 

Fragonard,  Jean  H.  . 175,  177 

Freminet,  Martin  . . .107 

Fromentin,  Eugene  . . 232 

Frutet,  Francisco  . , .17 

Furtado,  Joseph  D’ Almeida  . 89 

Galceran,  Antonio  . . 38 

Galindez,  Martin  . . .29 

Gallegos,  Fernando  . .14 

Gaudin,  Don  Luis  P.  . .38 

“Gavarni”  ....  218 
Gellee,  Claude  . . .140 

Gerard,  Franyois  , , . 188 

Gericault,  Theodore  . .197 

Gilarte,  Matteo  . , ,74 

Gillot,  Claude  . . .156 

Girodet  . . . . .194 

Gleyre,  Marc  Charles  G.  . 211 
Gomez,  Sebastian  . . .63 

Gonzalez,  Bartolome  . . 40 

Goya  . . . . ,76 

Grandville  . . . ,218 

Granelo,  Nicolao  . . .20 


INDEX. 


239 


PAGK 

Granet,  Frangois  M.  . ,211 

Greuze,  Jean  Baptiste  , .179 

Gringonneur  . . , .98 

Gros,  Antoine  Jean  . . 195 

Guerin,  Pierre  Narcisse  . .190 

Guevara,  Felipe  de  . .19 

Guitart,  Pedro  . . .38 

IIamon,  Jean  Louis  . . 232 

Helle,  Isaac  de  , . .29 

Hermes,  Isaac  . . .38 

Herrera,  Alonso  de  . . 29 

Herrera,  Francisco  de  . .50 

Herrera,  Francisco  “ El  Mozo  ” 50 
Hidalgo,  Josef  Garcia  . .74 

Holanda,  Antonio  de  . .82 

Holanda,  Francisco  de  . .86 

Horfelin,  Antony  . . .38 

Houasse,  Kene  Antoine  . .126 

Huet,  Jean  Baptiste  . . 219 

Ingles,  Maestro  . . .12 

Ingres,  Jean  A.  D,  . . 200 

Iriarte,  Ignacio  . . .62 

Isabey,  Jean  Baptiste  . .214 

“Janet”  ....  106 
Jeaurat,  Jean  . . .179 

Johann ot,  Alfred  . . .207 

Johannot,  Tony  . . . 209 

Jouvenet,  Jean  . . .151 

Joya,  Fernandez  M.  . , 63 

“ Juanes,”  Vicente  Juan  Macip  35 
Juncosa,  Joaquin  . . .75 

Labrador,  Juan  v . .24 

Lagrenee,  Jean  Frangois  , 170 
Lagreuee,  Jean  Jacques  . .170 

Lanchares,  Antonio  . . 40 

Lancret,  Nico'as  . . . 161 

Lantara,  Simon  Mathurin  . 219 

Largilliere,  Nicolas  de  . .155 

Latour,  Maurice  G.  de  . .175 

Le  Brun,  Charles  . . .124 

Le  Brun,  Madme.  E.  L.  Yigee  214 
Le  Fevre,  Claude  . . .138 

Le  Nain,  Antoine  . . . Ill 

Le  Nain,  Matthieu  . . ,111 

Le  Nain,  Louis  . . .Ill 


P.AGE 

Le  Sueur,  Eustache  . .122 

Leal,  Juan  de  Valdes  . .72 

Ledesma,  Bias  de  . . .34 

Lehmann,  Henri  . . .212 

Lemoine,  Frangois  . . , 164 

Leonardo,  Josef  . . .49 

Lepicie,  Nicolas  Bernard  . 173 

Leprince,  Jean  Baptiste  . .173 

Lethiere,  Guillaume  G.  . . 187 

Llorens,  Cristobal  . . .37 

Llorente,  Bernardo  G.  . .73 

“ Lo  Spagnoletto,”  Ribera  , 64 

Lopez,  Francisco  . . ,25 

Lorraine,  Claude  de  . .140 

Loutherbourg,  Jacques  P.  .174 

Lucientes,  Franci.sco  Goya  . 76 

Lupicino  , . . .38 

“Lusitano”  . . , .89 

Machado,  Volkmar  . . 89 

Machuca,  Pedro  . . .18 

Maella,  Marino  Salvador  . 75 

March,  Esteban  . , .66 

March,  Miguel  . . .66 

Marhilhat,  Prosper  . , 231 

Marinas,  Henrique  de  las  . 63 

Marmolajo,  Pedro  de  V,  . , 34 

Marquez,  Esteban  , . .72 

Martin,  Jean  Baptiste  . .145 

Martinez  del  Mazo  . . .49 

Martinez,  Jusepe  . . .67 

Martinez,  Gregorio  . , .30 

Martinez,  Josef  . . .30 

Martinez,  Josef  . . .75 

l\[atteos,  Francisco  Viera  de  , 89 

Mayno,  Juan  Bautista  . . 42 

Mazo,  Juan  B,  Martinez  del  . 49 

IMengs,  Antoine  R.  . . .71 

IMetel.i,  Agostino  . . .49 

]\Ieulen,  Antoine  F.  van  der  . 145 

IMichallon,  Achille  Etna  . . 220 

Mignard,  Pierre  . . .126 

Millet,  Jean  Frangois  . 144,  231 
Millet,  Jean  F.  (junr.)  . , 144 

Miranda,  Don  Juan  de  . .69 

Mohedano,  Antonio  . , 32 

Mois,  Rolando  . . .37 

Monnoyer,  Jean  B,  . .147 


240 


INDEX. 


Mora,  Geronimo  de 

PAGE  i 

. 38 

Morales,  Cristobal  de 

24 

Morales,  Luis  de  . 

24 

More,  Antonio 

22 

Moya,  Pedro  de 

52 

“Mozo,  El”  . 

50 

“Mudo,  El”. 

25 

Munoz,  Sebastian  . 

71 

Murillo,  Barto.omeo 

56 

Natoiee,  Charles  . 

164 

Nattier,  Jean  Marc 

174 

Navarrete,  Juan  F.  (surnamed 

“El  Mudo”) 

25 

Nunez,  Juan  . 

14 

Obregon,  Pedro  de 

40 

Orrente,  Pedro 

66 

Orsel,  Victor  . 

207 

Ortiga,  Bonant  de  . 

14 

Oudry,  Jean  Baptiste 

147 

Pablo,  Pedro . 

38 

Pacheco,  Francisco 

52 

Parrocel,  Charles  . 

174 

Parrocel,  Joseph 

145 

Patel,  Pierre  ? 

114 

Pater,  Jean  Baptiste 

161 

Pedro  de  Pampluha 

11 

Pelegi-et,  Thomas  . 

15 

Pellegrini,  Peregrin  o 
“Tibaldi”). 

(called 

20 

Pehaloso,  Juan 

63 

Pereda,  Antonio 

47 

Pereja,  Juan  de 

47 

Pereyra,  Vasco 

34 

Perez,  Antonio 

34 

Perez  d’Alesio 

34 

Perreal,  Jehan 

102 

Perrier,  Fran§ois 

110 

Petrus  de  Hispania 

11 

Peyron,  Pierre 

182 

Pierre,  Jean  B.  Marie 

172 

Pils,  Isidore  . 

219 

Pisano,  Niccolb  F.  . 

15 

Polo,  Diego  del 

49 

Pontons,  Pablo 

66 

“Portuense”. 

89 

Poussin,  Caspar 

142 

Poussin,  Nicof'is  . 

PAGE 

. 115 

Prado,  Bias  del 

. 27 

Prud’hon,  Pierre  Paul 

. 192 

Puga,  Antonio 

. 49 

Pujol,  Abel  de 

. 209 

Pupiler,  Antonio 

. 22 

Raffet,  Denis 

. 218 

Pane,  Jean 

. 71 

Raoux,  Jean  . 

. 154 

Regnault,  Henri 

. 234 

Regnault,  Jean  Baptiste  . 

. 189 

Rene  of  Anjou 

. 102 

Restout,  Jean 

. 171 

Rezende,  Garcia  de 

. 82 

Ribalta,  Francisco  . 

. 63 

Ribalta,  Juan  de 

. 64 

Ribera  .... 

. 64 

Ricard,  Gustav 

. 214 

Rigaud,  Hyacinth  . 

. 155 

Rincon,  Antonio 

. 13 

Riseho,  Josef  . 

. 73 

Rivalz,  Antoine 

. 166 

Rizi,  Francesco 

. 42 

Rizi,  Juan 

. 42 

Robert,  Hubert 

. 219 

Robert,  Louis  Leopold  . 

. 209 

Rodrigo,  Esteban  . 

. 11 

Roelas,  Juan  de  las 

. 50 

Rogel,  Maestro 

. 12 

Rousseau,  Theodore 

. 222 

Rubens,  P.  P. 

. 49 

Rubiales,  Pedro 

. 19 

Salmeran,  Cristobal  G, 

. 49 

Sanchez  Coello,  Alonso  . 

. 24 

Sanchez  de  Castro,  Juan  . 

. 14 

Santerre,  Jean  B.  . 

. 154 

Scheffer,  Ary  . 

. 202 

Secano,  Geronimo  . 

. 75 

Sequeira,  Domenico  A.  . 

. 89 

Seratin  .... 

. 38 

Sigalon,  Xavier 

. 194 

Silveira,  Bento  Coelho  da 

. 88 

Sotomayor,  Louis  de 
“ Spagnoletto,  Lo  ” 

. 74 

. 64 

Spagnuolo,  Giovanni 

. 19 

Stamina 

. 12 

INDEX. 


241 


PAGE 


Stella,  Jacques 

. 109 

Sturinio  .... 

. 18 

Subleyras,  Pierre  . 

. 167 

Tassaert,  Octave  . 

. 209 

Taunay,  Nicolas  Antoine 

. 220 

Tavarone,  Lazzare  . 

. 20 

Theotocopiili,  Domenico 

. 29 

“Tibalcli”  . 

. 20 

Tobar,  Alonso  Miguel  de 

. 73 

Tocque,  Louis 

. 174 

Toledo,  Juan  de 

. 63 

Torrente,  Ramon  . 

. 14 

Tort,  Guillen  . 

. 14 

Tournieres,  Robert  . 

. 175 

Tremolliere,  Pierre  Charles 

. 170 

Tristan,  Luis  . 

. 41 

Troy,  Frangois  de  . 

. 152 

Troy,  Jean  Francois 

. 166 

Troyon,  Constantine 

. 228 

Valenciennes 

. 220 

“Valentin” 

. 108 

Vanloo,  Carl 

. 167 

AAnloo,  Charles  Amedee. 

. 170 

Vanloo,  Jean  Ba])tiste 

. 168 

Vanloo,  Louis  Micliel 

71,  170 

Vargas,  Luis  de 

. 30 

Vasco,  Gran  . 

84,  86 

Vasquez,  Alonso 

. 32 

Vasquez,  Geronimo. 

25 

V asquez,  Juan  Bautista  . 

32 

Velasco  . 

. 85 

Velasco,  Acisclo 

. 73 

Velasco,  Luis  de 

. 29 

Velazquez,  Antonio  G. 

. 72 

Velazquez,  Diego  R.  de  Silv: 

1 V 42 

Vera,  Cristobal  de  . 

\ 63 

Verdier,  Frangois  . 

. 126 

Vergara,  Josef  de  . 

. 75 

Vermeyen,  Jan  C . 

. 17 

Vernet,  Carle  . 

. 214 

Vernet,  Horace 

. 216 

Vicente,  Bartolome 
Vien,  Joseph  Alarie 

. 75 

. 180 

Viera,  Francisco 

. 89 

Vigila 

. 11 

A^ila,  Senen  . 

. 74 

Viladomat,  Antonio 

. 75 

A^'illacis,  Nicolas  de 

. 74 

Villavicencio,  Pedro  AL 

de 

. 72 

Vincent,  Frangois  A. 

. 207 

Vivien,  Joseph 
Vouet,  Simon . 

. 175 

. 107 

Watteau,  Antoine 

. 159 

AWnez,  Fernando  . 

. 18 

Zambrano 

. 63 

Zamorra,  Juan  de  . 

. 63 

Ziegler,  Jules  . 

. 207 

Zuccaro,  Federico  . 

. 20 

Zurbaraii,  Francisco  de 

. 54 

R 


Richard  Clay  and  Sons,  Limited, 


LONDON  and  BUNGAY. 


ILLUSTRATED  BIOGRAPHIES  OF  THE 
GREAT  ARTISTS. 


Each  vohime  contains  many  Illustrations,  including,  'johen  possible,  a Portrait 
of  the  Master,  and  is  strongly  bound  in  decorated  cloth. 

Crown  8vo,  3.r.  6d.  per  volume,  unless  marked  otherwise. 


ENGLISH  PAINTERS. 

SIR  JOSHUA  REYNOLDS.  By  F.  S.  Pulling,  M.A.  From  the 

imst  recent  Authorities.  Illustrated  v/ith  Engravings  of  Penelope  Boothby — The  Straw- 
berry Girl — Muscipuia — Mrs.  Siddons — The  Duchess  of  Devonshire — Age  of  Innocence 
— Simplicity — and  lo  other  Paintings. 

WILLIAM  HOGARTH.  By  Austin  Dobson.  From  Recent  Researches. 

Illustrated  with  Reproductions  of  Groups  from  the  celebrated  Engravings  of  the  Rake’s 
Progress — Southwark  Fair — The  Distressed  Poet — The  Enraged  Musician— Marriage 
a-la-Mode — March  to  Finchley— and  lo  other  Subjects. 

GAINSBOROUGH  AND  CONSTABLE.  By  G.  Brock-Arnold, 

M.A.  Illustrated  with  Engravings  of  the  Blue  Boy — Mrs.  Graham— The  Duchess  of 
Devonshire — and  5 others  by  Gainsborough  : and  A Lock  on  the  Stour — Salisbury 
Cathedral — The  Cornfield — T'he  Valley  Farm— and  4 other  Picture.s,  by  Constable. 

SIR  THOMAS  LAWRENCE  AND  GEORGE  ROMNEY.  By 

L.ord  Ronald  Gower,  F.S.A.  Illustrated  with  Engravings  of  the  Duchess  of  Suther- 
land— Lady  Peel— Master  Lambton — and  Nature,  by  Lawrence  ; The  Parson’s  Daughter 
— and  other  Pictures,  by  Romney.  Price  is.  6d. 

TURNER.  By  Cosmo  Monkhouse.  From  recent  Investigations.  Illus- 
trated with  Engravings  of  Norham  Castle — The  Devil’s  Bridge — The  Golden  Bough — 
The  Fighting  Temeraire — Venice — The  Shipwreck— Alps  at  Daybreak — and  ir  other 
Paintings. 

SIR  DAVID  WILKIE:  A Memoir.  By  J.  W.  Mollett,  B.A. 

Illustrated  with  Engravings  of  Groups  from  the  Rent  Day — The  Village  Politicians — The 
Penny  Wedding- -Blind  Man’s  Buff — Duncan  Gray — The  Cut  Finger — and  4 other 
Paintings. 

SIR  EDWIN  LANDSEER  : A Memoir.  By  F.  G.  Stephens. 

Illustrated  with  17  Facsimiles  of  Etchings  ••’fter  Landseer’s  designs:  among  others,  Low 
Life— A Shepherd’s  Dog — Four  Irish  Greyhounds — Return  from  Deerstalking—Mare  and 
Foal— Sheep  and  Lambs — and  Facsimiles  of  the  Woburn  Game-cards- 


ILLUSTRATED  BIOGRAPHIES  OF  THE  GREAT  ART  I STS. 


ITALIAN  FAINTETS  AND  SCULPTORS, 

GIOTTO.  By  Harry  Quiltpr,  M.A.  From  recent  Investigations  at 

Padua,  Florence,  and  Assisi.  Illustrated  w.th  Engravings  of  the  Presentation  in  the 
Temple— The  Entombment  of  Christ — Obedience,  and  other  Frescoes — Bas-reliefs  on  the 
Campanile,  Florence — and  a Coloured  Plate  of  the  Madonna  at  Assisi. 

FRA  ANGELICO  AND  THE  EARLY  PAINTERS  OF 

FLORENCE.  By  C.  M.  Phillimore.  Illustrated  with  Engravings  of  the  Resuscita- 
tion of  the  King’s  Son,  by  Masaccio — The  Adoration  of  the  Kings,  by  Fra  Angelico — 
The  Coronation  of  the  Virgin,  by  Filippo  Lippi — The  Coronation  of  the  Virgin,  by 
Botticelli — and  13  other  Paintings. 

FRA  BARTOLOMMEO,  ALBERTINELLI,  AND  ANDREA 

DEL  SARTO.  By  Leader  Scott.  Illustrated  with  the  Enthronement  of  the  Vi-gin — 
St.  Mark — Salvator  Mundi,  by  Fra  Bartolommeo — TheVirgin  and  Saints,  by  Albertinelli 
— The  Madonna  del  Sacco,  by  Del  Sarto — and  lo  other  Paintings. 

GHIBERTI  AND  DONATELLO.  By  Leader  Scott.  Illustrated 

with  Engravings  of  the  Marble  Pulpit  of  Pisano— The  Bronze  Gate  of  the  Baptistery  at 
Florence,  by  Ghiberti  (4  pages) — Ihe  St.  George  of  Donatello — and  10  other  examples  of 
Sculpture.  Price  -zs.  6d. 

DELLA  ROBBIA,  CELLINI,  AND  OTHER  CELEBRATED 

SCULPTORS  OF  THE  15TH  AND  i6th  CENTURIES.  By  Leader  Scott.  With 
I llustrations  of  the  Singers  and  other  Bas-Reliefs,  by  Luca  della  Robbia — Perseus,  by 
Cellini — Mercury,  by  Giovanni  da  Bologna — and  many  other  Statues.  Price  2^.  6d. 

MANTEGNA  AND  FRANCIA.  By  Julia  Cartwright.  Illustrated 

w'ith  Engravings  of  Lodovico  Gcnzaga  and  his  Son — Part  of  the  Triumphs  of  Caesar — 
T he  Madonna  della  Vittoria,  by  Mantegna — The  Virgin  and  Saints — The  Deposition — 
A Pieta,  by  Francia — and  8 other  Paintings. 

LEONARDO  DA  VINCI.  By  Dr.  J.  Paul  Richter,  Illustrated  with 

Engravings  of  the  Last  Supper — The  Virgin  and  St.  Anne — Mona  Lisa — The  Vierge  aux 
Rochers — The  Battle  of  Anghiari — Head  of  Christ — and  9 other  Paintings  and  Drawings, 

MICHELANGELO  BUONARROTI.  By  Charles  Clement, 

Illustrated  with  Engravings  from  the  Frescoes  of  the  Last  Judgment — The  Prophe 
Isaiah — The  Creation  of  Man — Pisan  Soldiers  bathing  in  the  Arno — and  of  the  Statues 
of  Moses — The  Madonna  of  Bruge.s — The  Tombs  of  Lorenzo  and  Giuliano  de’  Medici  — 
and  10  other  Works  in  Painting  and  Sculpture. 

RAPHAEL.  By  N.  D’Anvers.  Illustrated  with  Engravings  of  Lo 

Sposalizio — La  Belle  Jardiniere  — The  School  of  Athens — Madonna  di  Foligno — Sl 
Cecilia — Madonna  della  Tenda — Madonna  della  Sedia — Battle  of  Constantine — The 
Transfiguration — and  14  other  Paintings. 

TITIAN.  By  R.  F.  Heath,  M.A.  Illustrated  Muth  Engravings  of  La 

Bella  di  Tiziano — The  Tribute-Money — The  Assumption  of  the  Virg.n — The  Pesaro 
Altar-piece — St.  Peter  Martyr — Titian’s  Daughter — and  8 other  Paintings. 

TINTORETTO.  By  W.  R.  Osler.  From  Inve.Higations  at  Venice. 

Illustrated  with  Engravings  of  the  Miracle  of  the  Slave — The  Marriage  at  Cana — The 
Entombment — The  Crucifixion — The  Betrothal  of  St.  Catherine,  &c. 

CORREGGIO.  By  M.  Compton  Heaton.  Illustrated  with  Engravings 

of  La  Notte — II  Giorno — Marriage  of  St.  Catherine — St.  Tohn  the  Evangelist — Tht 
Madonna  at  Dresden — and  5 other  Paintings.  Price  zs.  6d. 


ILLUSTRATED  BIOGRAPHIES  OF  THE  GREAT  ARTISTS.'-(^'^«r.) 


SPANISH  PAINTERS. 

VELAZQUEZ.  By  E.  Stowe,  M.A.  Illustrated  %vith  Engravings  of 

Isabel  of  Spain — The  Duke  of  Olivarez — The  Water-Carrier — The  Topers —The  Sur- 
render of  Breda — The  ISlaids  of  Honour — View  of  the  Villa  Medici— and  8 other 
Paintings. 

MURILLO.  By  Ellen  E.  Minor.  A Memoir  derived  from  recent 

Works.  Illustrated  with  8 Engravings  after  the  blaster’s  celebrated  Paintings,  including 
the  Immaculate  Conception,  in  the  Louvre — 'The  Prodigal  Son,  at  Stafford  House — The 
Holy  Family  (with  the  scodella),  at  Madrid — A Portrait  of  the  Artist — and  other  works. 
Price  2S.  6d. 

GERMAN  PAINTERS. 

ALBRECHT  DURER.  By  R.  F.  Heath,  M.A.  Illustrated  with 

Engravings  of  the  Conversion  of  St.  Eustace — The  Trinity — The  Great  White  Horse — 
The  Knight,  Death,  and  the  Devil — SS.  John  and  Peter — SS.  Paul  and  Mark — Christ 
taking  Leave  of  His  Mother — and  12  other  Paintings,  Engravings,  and  Woodcuts. 

THE  LITTLE  MASTERS  OF  GERMANY.  By  W.  B.  Scott. 

Altdorfer,  Hans  Sebald  Beham,  Bartel  Beham,  Aldegrever,  Pencz,  Bink,  and  Brosamer, 
Illustrated  with  Engravings  of  the  Emperor  Charles  V.,  by  Bartel  Beham — The  Madonna 
of  the  Crescent  Moon,  by  Aldegrever — Sophonisba,  by  Pencz — and  several  examples  of 
Decorative  Ornament,  &c. 

HANS  HOLBEIN.  By  Joseph  Cundall.  Illustrated  with  Engravings 

cf  the  Meyer  Madcnna — Archbishop  Warham — The  Family  of  Sir  Thomas  More — 
Hubert  Morett — Henry  VIII. — and  Examples  of  the  Woodcuts  in  the  Praise  of  Folly — 
1 he  Dance  of  Death — The  Bible  Cut.s,  &c. 

OVERBECK:  a Memoir,  By  J,  Beavington  Atkinson.  Comprising 

his  Early  Vears  in  Liibeck,  Studies  at  Vienna,  and  Settlement  at  Rome.  Illustrated  with 
Engravings  of  Christ  Blessing  Little  Children — Christ  Bearing  the  Cross — The  Entomb- 
ment— The  Holy  Famity  with  the  Lamb,  &c. 

FLEMISH  AND  DUTCH  PAINTERS. 
REMBRANDT.  By  J.  Mollett,  B.A.  Illustrated  with  Engravings 

of  the  Lesson  on  Anatoiny— The  Descent  from  the  Cross— Saskia — The  Night  Watch — 
Burgomaster  Six — Ihe  Three  Trees — Ephraim  Bonus — and  other  celebrated  Paintings 
and  Etchings. 

RUBENS.  By  C.  W.  Kett,  M.A.  Illustrated  with  Engravings  from 

Rubens  and  Isabella  Brandt — The  Descent  from  the  Cross — Rubens’  Two  Sons — 
Henry'  IV.  and  Marie  de  Medicis — The  Chateau  de  Steen — Le  Chapeau  de  Poil — and  10 
other  Paintings. 

VAN  DYCK  AND  HALS.  By  P.  R.  Head,  B.A.  Illustrated  with 

Engravings  of  the  Symdic  Meerstraten— Ecce  Homo — Charles  I.  and  the  Marquis  cf 
Hamilton — Henrietta  Marla,  with  Pnnces  Charles  and  James,  &c.,  by  Van  Dy'ck ; and 
Hals  and  Lisbeth  Reyners — The  Banquet  of  Arquebusiers — A Cavalier,  &c.,  by  Hals. 

THE  FIGURE  PAINTERS  OF  HOLLAND.  By  Lord  Ronald 

Gower,  F.S.A.  Illustrated  with  Engravings  of  Paternal  Advice,  by  Terborch — The 
Hunchback  Fiddler,  by  Adrian  van  Ostade — Inn  Stable,  by  Wouwerman — Dancing 
Dog,  by  Steen — Vegetable  Market,  by  Metsu — Dutch  Family,  by  V'er  Meer,  &c. 

FRENCH  PAINTERS. 

WATTEAU.  By  J.  \V.  Mollett,  B.A.  Illustrated  with  Engravings  of 

Fetes  Galantes,  Portraits,  Studies  from  the  Life,  Pastoral  Subjects,  and  Designs  for 
Ornament.  Price  2s.  td. 


ILLUSTRATED  BIOGRAPHIES  OF  THE  GREAT  ARTISTS.— 


CLAUDE  LORRAIN.  By  O,  J.  Dullea.  Illustrated  with  Engravings 

of  Crossing  the  Ford — An  Italian  Harbour  at  Sunset,  and  many  others  of  his  celebrated 
works.  \_In  preparation. 

VERNET  AND  DELAROCHE.  By  J.  Ruutz  Rees.  Illustrated 

with  Engravings  of  the  Trumpeter’s  Horse — The  Death  of  Poniatowski — The  Battle  of 
Fontenoy,  and  5 others,  by  Vernet  ; and  Richelieu  with  Cinque  Mars  and  De  Thou  — 
Death  of  the  Due  de  Guise — Charles  I.  and  Cromwell’s  Soldiers — and  a large  Engraving 
of  the  Hemicycle  of  the  Palais  des  Beaux-Arts,  by  Delaroche. 

ROUSSEAU  AND  MILLET.  By  W.  E.  Henley.  Illustrated  with 

Engravings  of  the  Sunrise  and  other  paintings,  by  Theodore  Rousseau  ; and  L’Angelus 
du  Soir,  and  other  Pastoral  Subjects,  by  Francois  J.  Millet.  \In  preparation. 

MEISSONIER  : a Memoir.  By  J.  W.  Mollett,  B.A.  Illustrated 

with  Engravings  from  the  Chess  Players — La  Rixe — The  Halt — The  Reader — The  Flemish 
Smoker — and  E.xamples  of  M.  Meissonier’s  Book  Illustrations.  Price  2^.  6d. 


From  the  Spectator'. — “ It  is  high  time  that  some  thorough  and  general  acquaintance  with 
the  works  of  these  mighty  painters  should  be  spread  abroad,  and  it  is  also  curious  to  think 
how  long  their  names  have  occupied  sacred  niches  in  the  world's  heart,  without  the  presence 

of  much  popular  knowledge  about  the  collective  work  of  their  lives If  the  present 

series  of  biographies,  which  seems  to  be  most  thoroughly  and  tastefully  edited,  succeeds  in 
responding  to  the  wants  of  modest,  if  ardent,  art-knowledge,  its  aim  will  be  accomplished.” 

From  the  Times'. — “Few  things  in  the  way  of  small  books  upon  great  subjects,  avowedly 
cheap  and  necessarily  brief,  have  been  hitherto  so  well  done  as  these  biographies  of  the  Great 
Masters  in  painting.  They  afford  just  what  a very  large  proportion  of  readers  in  these  hurry- 
ing times  wish  to  be  provided  with — a sort  of  concentrated  food  for  the  mind.” 


ELEMENTARY  WORKS  ON  ART. 

Strongly  bound  in  cloth,  price  3s.  6d.  each  volume, 
ELEMENTARY  HISTORY  OFL  ARCHITECTURE.  By  N. 

D’Anvers.  With  an  Introduction  by  Professor  T.  Roger  Smith.  Giving  a brief 
account  of  the  Egyptian,  Assyrian,  Greek,  Roman,  Early  Christian,  Byzantine, 
Romanesque,  Gothic,  Renaissance,  and  Modern  Architecture.  With  70  Illustrations. 

ELEMENTARY  HISTORY'OF  SCULPTURE.  By  N.  D’Anvers. 

Describing  the  Egpytian,  Assyrian,  Greek,  Roman,  Byzantine,  Gothic,  Renaissance,  and 
Modern  Sculpture.  With  50  Illustrations. 

ELEMENTARY  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING:  Classic,  Italian, 

German,  and  Spanish.  By  N.  D’Anvers.  Including  the  Classic,  Early  Christian, 
Byzantine,  and  Renaissance  Schools  in  Italy,  Spain,  and  Germany.  With  50  Illustrations. 

ELEMENTARY  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING:  Flemish,  Dutch, 

French,  and  English.  By  N.  D’Anvers.  Including  the  Schools  of  the  Netherlands, 
France,  England,  and  America,  in  the  17th,  i8th,  and  19th  Centuries.  With  40 
Illustrations. 

These  Fouf  Volumes  may  he  had  in  One  Volume,  price  los.  6d. 


ELEMENTARY  HISTORY  OF  MUSIC.  By  N.  D’Anvers.  A new 

Edition,  edited  by  Owen  J.  Dullea..  Illustrated  with  Portraits  of  the  most  eminent 
Composers,  and  Engr  ings  of  the  Musical  Instruments  of  many  Nations.  Crown  8vo, 
handsomely  bound  in  cloth,  price  2^.  6d. 


■■ 


sr  • 


is- 


>'*rn'^ifi£r ';■ 

- >'1  p-^- 

■ r , -■■  r • 

<^-p  - .#■ 

r . ' - 


j* 


'f 

■ 


4 


. r 

'*(*  • 


r- 


'1  .• 


•:  \ 


'sr 


.'Zi  ) 


f- 


/ 


